Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.2190/M4LV-U9L1-EB95-E9B1
F. Emmerich
Because modern technology allows an employer to evaluate an employee's genetic code, the potential practice of discriminating against employees deter mined to be hypersusceptible to genetic illness has become a realistic employ ment practice. Although these genetically classified employees may be sub ject to future employment discrimination based on the employer classifying them as "disabled," the employee will not be able to challenge such a dis criminatory practice under the Americans with Disabilities Act. A genetically hypersusceptible employee does not possess the requisite "disability" neces sary in order to have an actionable ADA claim against the employer. Because of the developing ability to isolate DNA molecules and to interpret their genetic codes, employers are now capable of evaluating an employee's potential long-term productivity. With a simple blood or urine test, employers can detect whether an employee is "hypersusceptible to an occupational illness in a given job" [1, p. 181; 2, p. 771]. Because of this ability to detect an individual's hypersusceptibility to disease based on genetic information, the issue arises of whether an employer can deny employment, terminate employment, or hinder advancement within employment for a hypersusceptible employee [1, p. 181]. Litigation premised on genetic hypersusceptibility is unreported because employers are just beginning to explore its possible use within the employment field. The enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) [3] may provide one avenue in which a plaintiff may challenge an employer's practice of
{"title":"Employee Terminated/Cause of Action Dismissed: The Americans with Disabilities Act Provides no Haven for Employees Hypersusceptible to Genetic Illness","authors":"F. Emmerich","doi":"10.2190/M4LV-U9L1-EB95-E9B1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/M4LV-U9L1-EB95-E9B1","url":null,"abstract":"Because modern technology allows an employer to evaluate an employee's genetic code, the potential practice of discriminating against employees deter mined to be hypersusceptible to genetic illness has become a realistic employ ment practice. Although these genetically classified employees may be sub ject to future employment discrimination based on the employer classifying them as \"disabled,\" the employee will not be able to challenge such a dis criminatory practice under the Americans with Disabilities Act. A genetically hypersusceptible employee does not possess the requisite \"disability\" neces sary in order to have an actionable ADA claim against the employer. Because of the developing ability to isolate DNA molecules and to interpret their genetic codes, employers are now capable of evaluating an employee's potential long-term productivity. With a simple blood or urine test, employers can detect whether an employee is \"hypersusceptible to an occupational illness in a given job\" [1, p. 181; 2, p. 771]. Because of this ability to detect an individual's hypersusceptibility to disease based on genetic information, the issue arises of whether an employer can deny employment, terminate employment, or hinder advancement within employment for a hypersusceptible employee [1, p. 181]. Litigation premised on genetic hypersusceptibility is unreported because employers are just beginning to explore its possible use within the employment field. The enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) [3] may provide one avenue in which a plaintiff may challenge an employer's practice of","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123816772","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.2190/AMY2-7V9J-XAXK-KL7Y
Henry H. Perritt
The uncertainties of common law wrongful dismissal laws have resulted in proposals for comprehensive legislation codifying "just cause" and other protections for employees, culminating in the approval by the commis sioners on uniform state laws of a model wrongful termination from employ ment act. The resulting model act represents a balanced approach to rationalizing a mess. This article briefly reviews the interests involved and sketches a resulting political calculus. It identifies the basic conceptual alter natives for wrongful dismissal legislation and then summarizes the principal features of the new model act. The article concludes that potential constitu tional challenges against wrongful dismissal legislation like the model act lack merit. The uncertainties of common law wrongful dismissal law have resulted in proposals for comprehensive legislation codifying "just cause" [1] and other protections for employees [2-7]. A number of draft wrongful dismissal laws have been considered, 1 although only Montana had adopted such legislation through
{"title":"State Wrongful Dismissal Legislation","authors":"Henry H. Perritt","doi":"10.2190/AMY2-7V9J-XAXK-KL7Y","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/AMY2-7V9J-XAXK-KL7Y","url":null,"abstract":"The uncertainties of common law wrongful dismissal laws have resulted in proposals for comprehensive legislation codifying \"just cause\" and other protections for employees, culminating in the approval by the commis sioners on uniform state laws of a model wrongful termination from employ ment act. The resulting model act represents a balanced approach to rationalizing a mess. This article briefly reviews the interests involved and sketches a resulting political calculus. It identifies the basic conceptual alter natives for wrongful dismissal legislation and then summarizes the principal features of the new model act. The article concludes that potential constitu tional challenges against wrongful dismissal legislation like the model act lack merit. The uncertainties of common law wrongful dismissal law have resulted in proposals for comprehensive legislation codifying \"just cause\" [1] and other protections for employees [2-7]. A number of draft wrongful dismissal laws have been considered, 1 although only Montana had adopted such legislation through","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"23 5","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114041834","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.2190/PEL7-EQUN-FN0D-2FBK
Kurt H. Decker
{"title":"Book Reviews: Disability Discrimination in Employment Law , by Robert L. Burgdorf, Jr.","authors":"Kurt H. Decker","doi":"10.2190/PEL7-EQUN-FN0D-2FBK","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/PEL7-EQUN-FN0D-2FBK","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122994919","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.2190/69YP-QKBT-UGQ0-HVAC
Scott Johnson
{"title":"Suing Under the Americans with Disabilities Act or Seeking Disability Benefits: A Hobson's Choice for People with Disabilities","authors":"Scott Johnson","doi":"10.2190/69YP-QKBT-UGQ0-HVAC","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/69YP-QKBT-UGQ0-HVAC","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131580964","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.2190/B3EF-TXW8-AE1V-R0L5
Amy H. Moorman
While attempting to reduce costs stemming from debilitative health condi tions of their employees, many employers have implemented policies regulat ing off-duty smoking. Consequently, a majority of the states have passed laws which protect the smoker's right to be free from discrimination. These laws are unsatisfactory due to their uncertain reach and their elevation of smokers to the status of a protected class. Also, employers must have some freedom to strive toward reducing the costs they bear as a result of their employees' smoking habits. However, a tension exists between the needs of employers and the privacy expectations of individuals. Invasive off-duty smoking policies may negatively affect employee attitudes, loyalty, and performance. Smoking cessation programs are a less intrusive means to achieve employers' legitimate goals. As American companies have confronted increasing competitive pressures and sought means to operate in a lean and efficient manner, many have implemented employee policies geared toward cost reduction. Because health care costs are rising rapidly, some companies have endeavored to alter those behaviors of their employees that contribute to debilitative and costly health conditions. Cigarette smoking is the primary preventable cause of illness and premature death in this country [1, p. 43] and is consequently an employee behavior that most employers would desire to modify. Some organizations have actually adopted policies that either prohibit their employees from smoking on and off the job or preclude the
{"title":"Employer Regulation of Off-Duty Smoking: Meeting the Needs of Employers and Employees with Smoking Cessation Programs","authors":"Amy H. Moorman","doi":"10.2190/B3EF-TXW8-AE1V-R0L5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/B3EF-TXW8-AE1V-R0L5","url":null,"abstract":"While attempting to reduce costs stemming from debilitative health condi tions of their employees, many employers have implemented policies regulat ing off-duty smoking. Consequently, a majority of the states have passed laws which protect the smoker's right to be free from discrimination. These laws are unsatisfactory due to their uncertain reach and their elevation of smokers to the status of a protected class. Also, employers must have some freedom to strive toward reducing the costs they bear as a result of their employees' smoking habits. However, a tension exists between the needs of employers and the privacy expectations of individuals. Invasive off-duty smoking policies may negatively affect employee attitudes, loyalty, and performance. Smoking cessation programs are a less intrusive means to achieve employers' legitimate goals. As American companies have confronted increasing competitive pressures and sought means to operate in a lean and efficient manner, many have implemented employee policies geared toward cost reduction. Because health care costs are rising rapidly, some companies have endeavored to alter those behaviors of their employees that contribute to debilitative and costly health conditions. Cigarette smoking is the primary preventable cause of illness and premature death in this country [1, p. 43] and is consequently an employee behavior that most employers would desire to modify. Some organizations have actually adopted policies that either prohibit their employees from smoking on and off the job or preclude the","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127756181","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.2190/DFTE-YVRF-GPW3-W3GH
Rob Varan
{"title":"Lawyers and Covenants Not to Compete","authors":"Rob Varan","doi":"10.2190/DFTE-YVRF-GPW3-W3GH","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/DFTE-YVRF-GPW3-W3GH","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"52 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133272501","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.2190/5GJT-6AW0-HV0L-EARM
Bernadette Marczely, David W. Marczely
{"title":"The Americans with Disabilities Act: Employee Right to Privacy v. Union Right to Know","authors":"Bernadette Marczely, David W. Marczely","doi":"10.2190/5GJT-6AW0-HV0L-EARM","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/5GJT-6AW0-HV0L-EARM","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"117 1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133497862","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 1900-01-01DOI: 10.2190/MN67-HT26-4BXP-MHAC
R. K. Robinson, R. L. Fink, Dave L. Nichols
The federal district court for the District of Rhode Island has recently ruled that a morbidly obese woman is entitled to protection under the Vocational Rehabilitation Act because her obesity was "perceived" as a disability. Though certain aspects of this ruling are specific to the particular actions of the employer in this case, a precedence for future rulings based on perceived disabilities has been created. This is of particular concern as the requirements for establishing "perceived disability" under the Rehabilitation Act are essen tially the same as those covered by the more inclusive Americans with Disabilities Act. On November 22,1993 the Federal District Court for the District of Rhode Island ruled that the Rhode Island Department of Mental Health, Retardation, and Hospi tals (MHRH) had violated the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 [1] by denying the complaining party a position as an institutional attendant for the mentally retarded (ΙΑ-MR) because she was "morbidly obese" [2]. Medically, an individual is considered to be morbidly obese if that individual weighs more than twice that individual's optimal weight or is in excess of 100 pounds of their optimal weight [3]. The popular press immediately concluded that this interpretation of federal disability laws would provide Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) protection
{"title":"Cook v. State of Rhode Island: Expanding the Application of \"Perceived Disability\" Under U.S. Disability Laws","authors":"R. K. Robinson, R. L. Fink, Dave L. Nichols","doi":"10.2190/MN67-HT26-4BXP-MHAC","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2190/MN67-HT26-4BXP-MHAC","url":null,"abstract":"The federal district court for the District of Rhode Island has recently ruled that a morbidly obese woman is entitled to protection under the Vocational Rehabilitation Act because her obesity was \"perceived\" as a disability. Though certain aspects of this ruling are specific to the particular actions of the employer in this case, a precedence for future rulings based on perceived disabilities has been created. This is of particular concern as the requirements for establishing \"perceived disability\" under the Rehabilitation Act are essen tially the same as those covered by the more inclusive Americans with Disabilities Act. On November 22,1993 the Federal District Court for the District of Rhode Island ruled that the Rhode Island Department of Mental Health, Retardation, and Hospi tals (MHRH) had violated the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 [1] by denying the complaining party a position as an institutional attendant for the mentally retarded (ΙΑ-MR) because she was \"morbidly obese\" [2]. Medically, an individual is considered to be morbidly obese if that individual weighs more than twice that individual's optimal weight or is in excess of 100 pounds of their optimal weight [3]. The popular press immediately concluded that this interpretation of federal disability laws would provide Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) protection","PeriodicalId":371129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Individual Employment Rights","volume":"124 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133048949","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：