The twilight zone between scientific certainty and legal sufficiency: should a jury determine the causation of schizophrenia?

In lawsuits involving complex scientific issues of causation, dispute resolution requires that a final decision be reached in each case, regardless of whether science is able to provide definitive answers to the questions of causation raised at trial. Proving causation before science has is a concept that scientists may find disconcerting and foreign to some of their basic assumptions. This paper explores the foregoing issues, discusses medical versus legal concepts of causation, outlines the legal tests for admissibility of novel scientific evidence (including Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the Frye test of general acceptance by the relevant scientific community), and presents a toxic tort case in which expert psychiatric testimony addressed the issue of causation of schizophrenia. The paper articulates concerns about the "misleading aura of certainty" posed by scientific evidence and the burden of decision making that is cast upon the legal system in such scientific issue cases.     

Using statistics in employment discrimination cases.

Statistics play an important role in employment discrimination cases, and this role will expand as the legal profession becomes increasingly aware of the utility of the increasingly sophisticated statistical methods available. Historically, plaintiffs in employment discrimination cases have used statistics to establish prima facie cases concerning inequities in areas such as wage rates, personnel selection, promotion, layoff, and termination decisions. Defendants have also employed statistics to demonstrate the fairness of employment practices and policies--for example, by providing statistical evidence of the validity of a test used in personnel selection. This article provides an overview of the role of statistics and the major statistical techniques employed in discrimination cases.     

Changing legal standards for proof of causation in hazardous waste tort cases. Plaintiffs' problems and congressional responses

Increasing public awareness and concern over the possible dangers of exposure to toxic chemicals and hazardous wastes has resulted in a variety of lawsuits brought by plaintiffs claiming injury resulting from chemical exposure. The legal system and its traditional approach to tort cases demands that a plaintiff demonstrate that a particular chemical substance was the "cause in fact" of his injury. However, a plaintiff's inability to present credible scientific evidence sufficient to pinpoint conclusively the specific cause of his injury or disease, particularly in cancer cases, leads to defeat in courts of law. This article discusses the existing barriers to plaintiffs' recovery in toxic tort cases and reviews congressional proposals designed to ease plaintiffs' evidentiary burden and increase their chances of prevailing.     

What Happened in Hazelwood: Statistics, Employment Discrimination, and the 80% Rule

Tests of statistical significance have increasingly been used in employment discrimination cases since the Supreme Court's decision in Hazelwood. In that case, the United States Supreme Court ruled that "in a proper case" statistical evidence can suffice for a prima facie showing of employment discrimination. The Court also discussed the use of a binomial significance test to assess whether the difference between the proportion of black teachers employed by the Hazelwood School District and the proportion of black teachers in the relevant labor market was substantial enough to indicate discrimination. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has proposed a somewhat stricter standard for evaluating how substantial a difference must be to constitute evidence of discrimination. Under the so-called 80% rule promulgated by the EEOC, the difference must not only be statistically significant, but the hire rate for the allegedly discriminated group must also be less than 80% of the rate for the favored group. This article argues that a binomial statistical significance test standing alone is unsatisfactory for evaluating allegations of discrimination because many of the assumptions on which such tests are based are inapplicable to employment settings; the 80% rule is a more appropriate standard for evaluating whether a difference in hire rates should be treated as a prima facie showing of discrimination.     

疫学因果关系及其证明

侵权法有关因果关系的一般理论有助于从总体上理解法律上的因果关系的性质与特征,却很难将其直接适用于对特定侵权类型的因果关系判断.疫学因果关系理论对司法审判实践中如何认定特定类型的环境侵权因果关系具有重要的指导意义,却未受到我国理论界的重视.将疫学型环境侵权的因果关系分为一般因与特定因,不但可以从理论上更为清晰地界定此类侵权因果关系的特征,还可以为在司法审判实践中判断因果关系是否存在提供参考框架.证明一般因存在与否的关键证据为流行病学证据,而证明特定因存在与否的证据则包括暴露学、临床医学、病理学等科学证据以及其他的一般证据.在对科学证据进行司法审查的基础上,结合其他证据和具体案情对因果关系作出司法判断,才有可能对疫学型环境侵权案件作出合理判决.     

美国产品责任中的纯粹经济损失规则探析——兼论我国相关法律制度的构建

在美国的侵权法上,因产品自身存在的缺陷而发生的产品本身价值的减损、修理更换发生的费用,以及因产品不能使用而发生的利润损失等被视为是一种纯粹经济损失。针对该类损失,美国的法院创造了责任排除规则,并且各州在对这一规则在运用时采用的是一种灵活且有弹性的实践方式。这样灵活的纯粹经济损失规则对于我国相关法律制度的构建非常有借鉴意义。     

人身侵权损害与死亡赔偿的制度理性

现代社会不断发生各种事故造成大量的人身及财产损害,针对这种现象构建良性的法律调整机制给人类智慧带来极大的挑战。我国目前正处于通过创制和健全相关民事立法——侵权责任法来积极应对各种事故导致人身与财产损害的关键时期。通过梳理我国现行人身侵权损害赔偿制度中分散多元多层级立法的大致脉络,提出生命的双重价值观命题以理性关照“同命同价”与“同命不同价”的热议,思考如何使侵权死亡赔偿范围及标准更趋于正当合理等问题,为完善我国相关立法略尽绵薄之力。     

Employment Discrimination Law and Industrial Psychology: Social Science as Social Authority and the Co‐Production of Law and Science

This article combines Monahan and Walker's classification of social facts, social authority, and social frameworks with political‐institutionalism's view of law and science as competing institutional logics to explain how, and with what consequences, employment discrimination law and industrial‐organizational (I‐O) psychology became co‐produced. When social science is incorporated into enforcement of legislative law as social authority—rationale for judicial rule making—law's institutional logic of relying on precedent and reasoning by analogy ensures that social science will have ongoing influence on law's development. By helping set research agendas and providing new professional opportunities, institutionalized legal doctrine shapes social science knowledge. But because of differences in institutional logic, wherein legal cumulation is backward looking whereas scientific cumulation is forward looking, co‐production of law and science may produce institutional mismatch between legal doctrine and scientific knowledge.     

Capturing Technological Opportunity Via Japan's Star Scientists: Evidence from Japanese Firms' Biotech Patents and Products

Using detailed data on biotechnology in Japan, we find that identifiable collaborations between particular university star scientists and firms have a large positive impact on firms' research productivity, increasing the average firm's biotech patents by 34 percent, products in development by 27 percent, and products on the market by 8 percent as of 1989–1990. However, there is little evidence of geographically localized knowledge spillovers. In early industry formation, star scientists holding tacit knowledge required to practice recombinant DNA (genetic engineering) were of great economic value, leading to incentives motivating their participation in technology transfer. In Japan, the legal and institutional context implies that firm scientists work in the stars' university laboratories in contrast to America where the stars are more likely to work in the firm's labs. As a result, star collaborations in Japan are less localized around their research universities so that the universities' local economic development impact is lessened. Stars' scientific productivity is increased less during collaborations with firms in Japan as compared to the U.S.     

论我国医疗损害责任制度的修改与完善——以《民法典·侵权责任编草案(三审稿)》的规定为视角

我国正在起草和制定的《民法典·侵权责任编草案(三审稿)》修订和完善了医疗损害责任的部分规则,使医疗损害责任规则体系更具有科学性和可操作性。为了满足司法实践的需要,保持法律规范的先进性和前瞻性,有必要完善知情同意规则、规定医疗技术损害责任的认定标准和考虑的因素、多个医疗机构的损害责任、误诊损害责任、医师外出会诊损害责任、完善医疗产品责任、远程医疗损害责任、医疗机会丧失损害责任、医疗管理损害责任以及医疗损害限额赔偿责任等方面的法律规则。我国立法机关应当利用制定民法典的契机,采纳司法实务界和学术界提出的有效解决医疗损害责任纠纷的建议,修改和完善《侵权责任法》确立的医疗损害责任制度,构建科学的医疗损害责任法律体系,为健康中国战略目标的实现提供法律保障。     

Causality and causation in tort law

This paper considers alternative approaches to dealing with causal uncertainty in strict liability tort regimes. Beginning from the philosophical literature on causing, a distinction is made between the scientific idea of causality and the legal idea of causation. This distinction is generalized to a context of causal uncertainty and associated probabilities are constructed. It is shown that a rule of proportional liability whereby the tortfeasor pays damages in proportion to the probability in causation of them having caused the damage would be socially efficient. This contrasts with the implied use of the probability in causality by the courts and in the law and economics literature on causal uncertainty.     

The jurisprudence of race and meritocracy

This article examines the jurisprudential interrelationships between the concept of merit, the tradition of legal individualism, and various doctrines of employment discrimination law. Specifically, we review evidence of continuing racial disparities in income and employment that have persisted despite decades of litigation to reduce or eliminate them. We argue that the unique jurisprudential role played by the concept of merit has undermined legal attempts to address the structural causes of racial discrimination in the workplace. We further suggest that the use of standardized employment tests and the nature of the legal doctrines that govern their use reflect certain outmoded meritocratic assumptions that, by individualizing the nature of racial disparity, contribute to continuing group disadvantage in the workplace.     

论就业歧视利益冲突之法律平衡与协调——兼论我国反就业歧视法律制度的完善

在劳动力市场就业环节中,雇员(包括求职者)和雇主有着不同的权利和利益,用人自主权和平等就业权是就业歧视现象所隐含的利益结构中最核心的内容。在分析这两者的法学基础上,本文剖析了美国反就业歧视法律制度是如何有效地在就业歧视的例外性规定、举证责任配置、赔偿制度等方面平衡协调雇主和雇员各自利益的。针对目前我国反就业歧视法律制度的现状和缺陷,作者就价值取向、适用主体、保护范围、救济途径、赔偿制度及就业准入制度和劳动力市场基础等几个方面提出了完善和创新的相关思路。     

侵权行为之债及其立法路径辨析

侵权行为之债的路径为罗马法所开辟,该路径为多数国家的立法所接受。侵权行为之债有其独特性,发挥着缓解、调整和保护复杂社会关系的价值功用。债在我国有其存在的社会法律和思想文化基础,侵权行为之债的路基宽广厚实、安全可靠、科学合理,并可不断拓展和加载新的容量,有利于中国民法法典化。侵权行为之债的路径不是赔偿损失的狭路窄道,而是坚实广阔的光明大道,可以承载侵权行为的一般规则和条件、各类侵权行为及责任方式、一般侵权行为类型和特殊侵权行为类型等内容。     

Expert testimony on decision processes in employment cases

The 1991 Civil Rights Act and recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have modified standards applicable to psychometric or statistical proof of discrimination in employment cases. Changes in the legal standards have increased the role for psychological experts to prove or rebut allegations of disparate impact of hiring or promotional criteria, whether those criteria caused the observed disparities in the workforce, and whether the legitimate needs of the employer were substantially served by the employer's selection criteria. Three different methods or approaches to meet the legal standards are discussed: (a) reliance on traditional psychometric validity analyses; (b) regression analysis or the policy-capturing method; and (c) the survey data approach. These techniques are illustrated by reference to three cases in which experts successfully presented this evidence. While the application of the 1991 Civil Rights Act remains somewhat unclear, these approaches may prove useful in future employment discrimination cases.The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission or any other government agency.     

论环境民事侵权的证明责任

法律要件分类说是客观证明责任的分配的一种主导学说。探讨环境民事侵权的证明责任问题 ,须先讨论环境民事侵权的构成要件 ,由于盖然性因果关系理论的采用 ,对证明责任的分配格局发生了影响。     

Why fairness cannot be automated: Bridging the gap between EU non-discrimination law and AI

In recent years a substantial literature has emerged concerning bias, discrimination, and fairness in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning. Connecting this work to existing legal non-discrimination frameworks is essential to create tools and methods that are practically useful across divergent legal regimes. While much work has been undertaken from an American legal perspective, comparatively little has mapped the effects and requirements of EU law. This Article addresses this critical gap between legal, technical, and organisational notions of algorithmic fairness. Through analysis of EU non-discrimination law and jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and national courts, we identify a critical incompatibility between European notions of discrimination and existing work on algorithmic and automated fairness. A clear gap exists between statistical measures of fairness as embedded in myriad fairness toolkits and governance mechanisms and the context-sensitive, often intuitive and ambiguous discrimination metrics and evidential requirements used by the ECJ; we refer to this approach as “contextual equality.”This Article makes three contributions. First, we review the evidential requirements to bring a claim under EU non-discrimination law. Due to the disparate nature of algorithmic and human discrimination, the EU's current requirements are too contextual, reliant on intuition, and open to judicial interpretation to be automated. Many of the concepts fundamental to bringing a claim, such as the composition of the disadvantaged and advantaged group, the severity and type of harm suffered, and requirements for the relevance and admissibility of evidence, require normative or political choices to be made by the judiciary on a case-by-case basis. We show that automating fairness or non-discrimination in Europe may be impossible because the law, by design, does not provide a static or homogenous framework suited to testing for discrimination in AI systems.Second, we show how the legal protection offered by non-discrimination law is challenged when AI, not humans, discriminate. Humans discriminate due to negative attitudes (e.g. stereotypes, prejudice) and unintentional biases (e.g. organisational practices or internalised stereotypes) which can act as a signal to victims that discrimination has occurred. Equivalent signalling mechanisms and agency do not exist in algorithmic systems. Compared to traditional forms of discrimination, automated discrimination is more abstract and unintuitive, subtle, intangible, and difficult to detect. The increasing use of algorithms disrupts traditional legal remedies and procedures for detection, investigation, prevention, and correction of discrimination which have predominantly relied upon intuition. Consistent assessment procedures that define a common standard for statistical evidence to detect and assess prima facie automated discrimination are urgently needed to support judges, regulators, system controllers and developers, and claimants.Finally, we examine how existing work on fairness in machine learning lines up with procedures for assessing cases under EU non-discrimination law. A ‘gold standard’ for assessment of prima facie discrimination has been advanced by the European Court of Justice but not yet translated into standard assessment procedures for automated discrimination. We propose ‘conditional demographic disparity’ (CDD) as a standard baseline statistical measurement that aligns with the Court's ‘gold standard’. Establishing a standard set of statistical evidence for automated discrimination cases can help ensure consistent procedures for assessment, but not judicial interpretation, of cases involving AI and automated systems. Through this proposal for procedural regularity in the identification and assessment of automated discrimination, we clarify how to build considerations of fairness into automated systems as far as possible while still respecting and enabling the contextual approach to judicial interpretation practiced under EU non-discrimination law.     

Tort Law and Corrective Justice

This article offers arefutation of the corrective justiceinterpretation of tort law – the view that itis essentially a system of corrective justice. It introduces a distinction between primary andsecondary tort duties and claims that tort lawis best understood as the union of its primaryand secondary duties. It then advances twoindependent criticisms of the correctivejustice interpretation. The article firstargues that primary tort duties have nothingfundamentally to do with corrective justice andthat, if one understands what is meant by``primary tort duties,' one is compelledto regard this fact as a decisive objection tothe corrective justice interpretation. Second,it argues that, whatever relation thereis between secondary tort duties and correctivejustice, that relation also holds betweencorrective justice and secondary duties ofother legal branches. In sum, the concept ofcorrective justice is neither capable ofunifying tort law nor of demarcating it fromother legal branches.The article also offers a general alternativeinterpretation of tort law. Rather thanbeing essentially corrective, tort law isessentially protective. Under this picture, iftort law has a most important point, it is theprotection of legal subjects and valuablesocial interests from harm. This is theoverarching ambition that unifies primary andsecondary tort duties. It does not, however,demarcate tort law from other legal branches.