Two studies were conducted to evaluate a measure of organisational paternalism (OP) directed toward people with disabilities. In the first study, a measure of OP was developed, designed to tap into two dimensions: 1) inappropriate authority; 2) inappropriate benevolence, and administered by an online survey to 266 university students. Results reveal that these two dimensions are relevant features for the sample under study. Both dimensions allow participants to express their superiority toward people with disabilities, in the case of inappropriate authority, and to maintain an impression of respecting the equality principle, as in the case of inappropriate benevolence. The object of the second study was to examine the link between the two dimensions of OP that were retained in the previous study and the evaluation of a candidate of a person with a physical disability. The study randomly placed participants in one of two job opportunities whereby both varied in terms of whether the employment was situated in an integrated (n = 33) or protected (n = 28) work environment. Results of this second study revealed that in an integrated employment situation, participants who reported high levels of inappropriate authority were less likely to report that the candidate was a good fit for the job and perceive the candidate as competent. Furthermore, in the integrated employment situation, participants who expressed inappropriate benevolence were more likely to evaluate the candidate as warm, a quality that was not associated with the job requirements. However, the OP was not an issue in the evaluation of the candidate when the job was situated in a protected work environment. Implications of these results for the employment of people with disabilities are discussed.