Employee relations law journal最新文献

The EEOC recently issued "Enforcement Guidance" on psychiatric disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Although the Guidance provides clarification of a few issues involving mental disabilities under the ADA, in most respects the Guidance is problematic. For example, the Guidance suggests that the inability to get along with a supervisor or coworkers may constitute a disability under the ADA, that an employer may have to "accommodate" a disabled employee's misconduct, that an employer cannot require an employee to follow doctor's orders as a condition of employment, and that an employer may be obligated to modify work rules and procedures to accommodate a mentally disabled employee but is prohibited from explaining to coworkers why it is making such modifications. As the EEOC's Guidance exceeds or conflicts with the ADA in some respects and is largely unworkable in many respects, it remains to be seen how many courts will actually follow it.

In adopting the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), Congress made a series of small but significant steps toward improving access to health care benefits. The Act's centerpiece is its new requirements for group health plans and for the health insurance industry for assuring portability, access, and renewability of health insurance coverage. Of nearly equal importance is the pilot program established for testing the viability of medical savings accounts. Other health-related changes include adjustments in the rules governing duplication and coordinating of Medicare-related plans, recommendations with respect to privacy of health information of employees, an increase in the deduction for health insurance costs for self-employed individuals, and permission for unemployed persons to make withdrawals from IRAs and other qualified plans for certain medical services' costs. This article summarizes these and other key provisions of HIPAA.

In the typical ADA claim, the plaintiff will claim that he or she has a disability but is nevertheless able to perform the essential functions of his or her job. This position is often in direct conflict with other non-ADA claims that the plaintiff has made or is making, where the plaintiff is claiming total disability and/or that he or she is unable to work. This article examines these phenomena, reviews the numerous recent cases that have found for employers based on these inconsistent positions of the plaintiff, and explains how employers can be develop and present this defense.

In the three years since the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was enacted, significant developments have occurred in the form of new administrative and judicial interpretations of the Act. The new guidelines and decisions will assist employers in complying with the ambiguous, and sometimes confusing, provisions of the ADA. Recent developments in areas such as the definition of a disability and the permissibility of medical inquiries, along with continuing developments in the areas of mental disabilities and defining reasonable accommodations, give employers insight into the obligations created by the ADA. These developments are a good starting point to understanding the ADA, but there is still a long way to go. This article surveys the recent developments in the law and examines the considerations that have become important to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the courts in interpreting the ADA's provisions.

ERISA's board preemption provision has survived many challenges to its scope and effect. Now it may have succumbed in the face of a few statements tucked into the legislative history of the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Language in the legislative history presents the view that the Act was meant to overturn ERISA preemption of state family and medical leave laws. The text of the FMLA contains no corroborating language to support that view. However, at least one court found the statements in the legislative history to be persuasive and ruled that under the FMLA, ERISA does not preempt state family and medical leave laws that regulate ERISA plans. If other courts follow that decision, there will be great implications to employee benefit plan regulation and administration. This article explores the court's decision and the relationship between the FMLA and ERISA preemption.

While numerous sources have focused on employee rights and employer obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act, this article will emphasize employer rights with respect to mental disabilities under the ADA. Specifically, it addresses the ADA's definition of "mental disability," the right of employers to screen job applicants in spite of the ADA, the conditions under which an employer may require an employee to undergo a "fitness for duty" examination, and the limits of the duty to "reasonably accommodate" an employee with a mental disability.

Due to the high cost of health care claims and COBRA's status as remedial legislation, COBRA has generated a significant amount of litigation in recent years. While the early COBRA decisions tended to broaden the law in order to provide a remedy to an otherwise uninsured qualified beneficiary, the recent trend in the case law has been to limit the expansion of COBRA rights based on a narrower construction of the statute. Even so, COBRA still represents a legal minefield for employers. As a result, a careful employer will minimize its exposure by monitoring changes in the law and its interpretation and making appropriate modifications to its COBRA documentation and administration. This article discusses some of the more significant recent changes in the law affecting qualified beneficiaries' COBRA rights--and therefore, employers' exposure.