Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility guidelines for buildings and facilities; play areas. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. Final rule

The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (Access Board) is issuing final accessibility guidelines to serve as the basis for standards to be adopted by the Department of Justice for new construction and alterations of play areas covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The guidelines include scoping and technical provisions for ground level and elevated play components, accessible routes, ramps and transfer systems, ground surfaces, and soft contained play structures. The guidelines will ensure that newly constructed and altered play areas meet the requirements of the ADA and are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. The Department of Justice must adopt the guidelines as standards for them to be enforceable under the ADA.     

Serving two masters: the interaction between Family and Medical Leave Acts and the ADA

The complex interaction between family leave acts and the new Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is just coming to light as employers begin to analyze how to comply with both laws. Specifically, the ADA implicates the procedures set forth in most family leave acts for verifying an employee's need for a leave through mandatory medical examinations and doctor's certificates. Many employees who are entitled to a leave of absence under state law are defined as "disabled" under the ADA. The ADA protects these employees with disabilities by regulating medical examinations and inquiries, and protecting the confidentiality of information obtained in such inquiries. This article offers some practical guidance for employers in providing leaves of absence under state family leave acts, while verifying the need for leaves in compliance with the ADA.     

Stigma as a barrier to employment: mental disability and the Americans with Disabilities Act

In a controversial expansion of workplace civil rights, the 1990 Americans with Disability Act (ADA) extended anti-discrimination protection to individuals with "mental impairments." One of the most critical barriers to the employment of individuals with mental disabilities is the degree of social stigma such disabilities incur, and there is compelling evidence that employers have stigmatizing attitudes and have discriminated against those with mental disabilities. This study examines the role played by stigma in employers' response to the 1990 Americans with Disability Act (ADA). A stratified sample of one hundred ninety employers were surveyed in 1996-1997 in a major Southern metropolitan area. Telephone interviews were completed with one hundred seventeen employers (response rate of 61.6%). The article describes employers' experiences with employees with mental disabilities and accommodations, specific employment practices, and attitudes towards those with mental disabilities. Stigma played an important role in conformity to the ADA (operationalized as either hiring or having specific recruiting policies for hiring individuals with mental disabilities). Furthermore, employers expressing coercive (fear of a lawsuit) as opposed to normative (belief that it is the right thing to do) rationales for compliance were more likely to hold stigmatized attitudes. Employers' beliefs about mental disability form a crucial foundation for truly supportive work environments (those that value difference and diversity), and further research is needed to determine if over time the ADA is successful in changing attitudes as well as behavior.     

Occupational exposure to bloodborne pathogens; needlestick and other sharps injuries; final rule. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Department of Labor. Final rule; request for comment on the Information Collection (Paperwork) Requirements

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration is revising the Bloodborne Pathogens standard in conformance with the requirements of the Needlestick Safety and Prevention Act. This Act directs OSHA to revise the Bloodborne Pathogens standard to include new examples in the definition of engineering controls along with two new definitions; to require that Exposure Control Plans reflect how employers implement new developments in control technology; to require employers to solicit input from employees responsible for direct patient care in the identification, evaluation, and selection of engineering and work practice controls; and to require certain employers to establish and maintain a log of percutaneous injuries from contaminated sharps.     

A guide to the EEOC's final regulations on the Americans with Disabilities Act

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently issued its final regulations on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Although the regulations offer some guidance for employers on how to comply with the Act, they fail to provide specific answers to the many complicated compliance questions that will surely arise. Further, the regulations are almost totally silent on certain critical issues related to insurance, workers' compensation, and potential conflicts between ADA obligations and terms of collective bargaining agreements. The EEOC has essentially left the resolution of many important ADA questions to case-by-case determination and the litigation process.     

Mental disabilities under the ADA: a management rights approach

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.     

"Reasonable accommodation" under the Americans with Disabilities Act--what does it mean?

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) imposes on employers the duty to afford qualified disabled applicants and employees "reasonable accommodation," but provides minimal guidance as to the range of actions necessary to fulfill this duty. Under the statutory scheme, required accommodations will vary from employer to employer, from worksite to worksite for the same employer, and perhaps even from employee to employee at the same worksite. Personnel managers will be required to make very fact-specific decisions in each case as to whether to offer particular accommodations, with any decision declining to provide the accommodation subject to attack in litigation. Based on an analysis of how similar reasonable accommodation requirements have been interpreted under other statutes, this article analyzes the likely parameters of the duty to afford reasonable accommodation under the ADA and offers specific suggestions for employers to minimize their risk of liability.     

Special report on labor and employment. Provider obligations under the Drug-Free Workplace Act

In view of the sanctions that may be taken by government agencies against employers, all providers should take their obligations under the Act seriously. The first step for each provider is to determine if it is subject to the Act or to any analogous state statutes. If so, the provider should take steps, if it has not already done so, to comply with the Act or applicable state legislation. While the Act has been criticized as a matter of social policy for not going further to prevent substance abuse in the workplace--by, for example, mandating drug testing or requiring sanctions against employees without the prerequisite of a criminal conviction--there is no question that the penalties it authorizes against employers do go far enough to warrant careful compliance with the Act's provisions.     

Medicare program; changes to maintenance of effort requirements (section 421 of the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act)--HCFA. Notice

This notice announces the effect on employers of the repeal of section 421 (Maintenance of Effort Provision) of the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act of 1988 (MCCA). The enactment of Public Law 101-234 (Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Repeal Act of 1989) on December 13, 1989 repealed many of the provisions of MCCA and restored the Medicare benefit levels to those available prior to January 1, 1989. Consequently, employers are relieved of their Maintenance of Effort responsibilities effective January 1, 1990.     

Managing AIDS in the workplace

Because of the AIDS epidemic and the protections afforded individuals with AIDS under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), employers are well advised to ensure compliance under applicable law to reduce exposure to employee claims of discrimination and to efficiently manage workplace issues associated with AIDS. Employers should implement AIDS policies and programs designed to educate their workforce to reduce the spread of AIDS and to clear up any misunderstandings about the disease which could wreak havoc in the workplace. This article summarizes suggested action steps for employers and outside resources to consult for guidance.     

Not disabled enough: the ADA's "major life activity" definition of disability

Michelle Friedland argues in this note that the Americans with Disabilities Act fails to adequately distinguish between the separate goals of preventing pure discrimination and providing affirmative accommodation. The Act's conflation of these two different objectives, and its reliance on a single definition of disability for both, hinders its effectiveness in improving the status of individuals with disabilities in the employment setting. To illustrate this, she points to the counterintuitive results reached in recent court decisions. Friedland further traces the legislative origins of the Act's definition of disability and the ambiguity it leaves as to Congress's goals for the Act's employment provisions. She posits three possible goals the Act might be designed to achieve and recommends basic reforms for accomplishing each. Her ultimate conclusion is that provisions dealing with accommodation and discrimination need to be divided so that each can have its own definition of disability. In addition, she believes funding mechanisms for providing accommodation should be altered to ameliorate inequalities in burdens borne by employers and to avoid improper incentives to circumvent the Act.     

Revision of Department of Justice Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Regulations and Implementation of Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 1996--DoJ. Proposed Rule

This document sets forth proposed revision of the Department's regulations under both the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Privacy Act of 1974. The FOIA and Privacy Act regulations have been streamlined and condensed, in accordance with the principles of the National Performance Reviews. With more "user-friendly" language wherever possible. These revisions also reflect the principles established by President Clinton and Attorney General Reno in their FOIA Policy Memoranda of October 4, 1993. The new statement of discretionary disclosure policy will supercede the existing regulation regarding discretionary access to records of historical interest. Additionally, the regulations have been updated to reflect developments in the case law and to include updated cost figures to be used in calculating and charging fees. These proposed revisions also contain new provisions implementing the Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 1996.     

Group health plans and health insurance issuers relating to coverage of preventive services under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Final rules

These regulations finalize, without change, interim final regulations authorizing the exemption of group health plans and group health insurance coverage sponsored by certain religious employers from having to cover certain preventive health services under provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.     

The Family and Medical Leave Act--key provisions and potential problems

The recently enacted Family and Medical Leave Act requires larger employers to provide eligible employees with up to twelve weeks of unpaid leave for certain medical and family-related reasons. This article addresses who the law applies to; the circumstances when leave must be granted; how the leave period is supposed to be scheduled; various notice, scheduling, medical certification, and reporting requirements; reinstatement and continuation-of-benefits requirements; and other key provisions of the Act. The basic requirements of the Act are not complicated, but certain issues that are not addressed by the Act or its legislative history--such as what qualifies as a serious health condition justifying a leave, when an intermittent or reduced schedule leave may be taken and how such schedules are determined, and how differences with state family and medical leave laws are to be reconciled--will have to be resolved by administrative regulation or litigation.     

The Effects of Attribution of Responsibility and Work History on Perceptions of Reasonable Accommodations

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), employers must provide employees with disabilities reasonable accommodations that will enable them to perform job duties, as long as the accommodations do not financially burden the organization. Two studies were conducted to investigate whether disability origin and/or prior work history impermissibly influence the granting of reasonable accommodations under the ADA. In both studies, participants granted more accommodations for employees whose disability was caused by some external factor than for those whose disability was caused by the employee's own behavior. In Study Two, participants also granted more and costlier accommodations for an employee with an excellent work history than for an employee with an average work history. Implications of the use of extralegal factors in accommodation decisions are discussed.     

Human rights and health law

Important statutory and common law developments are changing the landscape of health law in Australia. Human rights considerations are formally included amongst the factors to be applied in the interpretation of statutory provisions and evaluating the lawfulness of actions on the part of government instrumentalities. The Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) and the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) create limited bills of rights at State/Territory level in two Australian jurisdictions. Although neither is entrenched, they have the potential to make it more difficult for government to promulgate laws that are inconsistent with human rights, as defined. They will have important repercussions for the evolution of health law in these jurisdictions. The decision of Royal Women's Hospital v Medical Practitioners Board (Vic) [2006] VSCA 85 by the Victorian Court of Appeal has also provided a legitimation for parties to incorporate human rights perspectives in submissions about the interpretation of statutory provisions where health rights are in conflict.     

董事注意义务的民事责任研究

在我国,关于董事注意义务的相关规定尚不规范,在公司法相关法律中也没有详细规定,且执法中受到查处的个案也比较少。这种现象与制度本身的不健全、对规定解读的多样化、查处手段单一等直接相关。本文以新公司法的内容和结构为基础,着眼于"董事注意义务的概念界定"、"董事注意义务的内容和判断标准"、"董事注意义务的民事责任"等内容对董事注意义务进行了分析,并根据近年来公司法理论和实务的最新发展对董事注意义务的立法完善问题提出了相关建议。     

Is "ten days" really ten days?--the National Labor Relations Act's strike notice requirement in the healthcare industry

Nearly thirty years ago, Congress amended the National Labor Relations Act (Act) and provided employees of healthcare institutions with the right to strike and picket. At the same time, Congress added a new Section 8(g) requiring a labor organization to provide a healthcare institution with ten days' notice before engaging in various types of concerted activity--primarily strikes and picketing--against the institution. Thus, Section 8(g) is an important statute for healthcare employers. But since the time Congress added Section 8(g), the National Labor Relations Board has taken various views on Section 8(g) and whether "ten days" is really ten days. This Note explores the purposes of Section 8(g), as well as the reach and limits of its language, noting areas in which the board may wish to reconsider its application of the statute. Ultimately, the Note provides a checklist for healthcare employers to keep in mind with respect to Section 8(g).     

Equal employment opportunity for individuals with disabilities--EEOC. Final rule

On July 26, 1990, the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) was signed into law. Section 106 of the ADA requires that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issue substantive regulations implementing title I (Employment) within one year of the date of enactment of the Act. Pursuant to this mandate, the Commission is publishing a new part 1630 to its regulations to implement title I and sections 3(2), 3(3), 501, 503, 506(e), 508, 510, and 511 of the ADA as those sections pertain to employment. New part 1630 prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities in all aspects of employment.     

七部地方性精神卫生条例的合法性突变及其修正简

《精神卫生法》实施后,根据《立法法》的相关规定,先行制定并实施的七部地方性精神（心理）卫生条例面临着合法性问题,与上位法相抵触的规定无效并应及时的修改或废止。一方面七部条例＂相抵触的规定＂不仅包含具体条款,还涉及立法理念和原则的变化;另一方面七部条例的性质突变后带来的与其原有形式的矛盾,建议七部条例在《精神卫生法》配套法规完成后采用修订或立新废旧的方式予以修正,使之从创制性法规变为实施性法规;或者对没有存在必要的地方采取单项废止。