Are insurance companies liable under the Americans with Disabilities Act?

Federal courts have split on the question of the applicability of the Americans with Disabilities Act to insurance coverage decisions that insurance companies make on the basis of disability; they have similarly split on other issues pertaining to the scope of that Act's application. In deciding whether to read the Act as prohibiting discrimination in insurance decisions that are often crucial in the lives of people with disabilities, courts have faced two problems. First, where it prohibits discrimination in the equal enjoyment of the goods and services of places of public accommodation, the Act's area of concern may be limited to the ability of people with disabilities to gain physical access to facilities; or that area may extend to all forms of disability-based discrimination in the provision of goods and services. This Comment argues that the language and legislative history of the Act are consistent only with the latter view. Second, the provision limiting the Act's applicability to insurance may create an exemption for all insurance decisions; or it may protect only the ability of an insurance company to make an insurance decision to the disadvantage of an insured with a disability where actuarial data support the decision. This comment argues that the ambiguous language of the limiting provision should be resolved in favor of the latter view. Legislative history and the broader background of the history of insurance discrimination law support this resolution. Consequently, the Act should be interpreted as prohibiting disability-based discrimination by insurance companies in selling insurance policies and as defining discrimination as making disability-based insurance decisions without the support of actuarial data. By accepting this interpretation, courts can help stop the pattern of judicial narrowing of the Act's application through inappropriately restrictive statutory construction.     

"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.     

Toward a clean government in China: does the budget reform provide a hope?

Fighting corruption has proven to be a difficult task in many countries. In this paper, using China as a case study, we argue that a properly designed budgetary institution helps remove many institutional incentives and opportunities for corruption in financial management and regulatory activities of the government. As a result of recent budget reforms, China’s anticorruption effort has shifted from its earlier emphasis on exhortation and periodic crackdowns, which have been found to be ineffective, to the more fundamental issues of institutional incentives and opportunities for corruption. We propose that one consequence of the budget reform is the hope that China’s effort to create a clean government will be advanced. However, there is still a long way to go since it will take time for the new budgetary system to be institutionalized. This study is supported by Sun Yat-sen University 982–2 International Exchange Fund. The authors wish to thank Professor Ting Gong, Professor Stephen Ma, and Dr. Alfred Ho for their assistance and suggestions in editing and refining this essay. We are also grateful to Dr. Oliver M. Rui for his valuable comments. Lastly, we want to thank Dr. Andrew Wedeman for sending us his paper for reference.

---

Robots in the cloud with privacy: A new threat to data protection?

The focus of this paper is on the class of robots for personal or domestic use, which are connected to a networked repository on the internet that allows such machines to share the information required for object recognition, navigation and task completion in the real world. The aim is to shed light on how these robots will challenge current rules on data protection and privacy. On one hand, a new generation of network-centric applications could in fact collect data incessantly and in ways that are “out of control,” because such machines are increasingly “autonomous.” On the other hand, it is likely that individual interaction with personal machines, domestic robots, and so forth, will also affect what U.S. common lawyers sum up with the Katz's test as a reasonable “expectation of privacy.” Whilst lawyers continue to liken people's responsibility for the behaviour of robots to the traditional liability for harm provoked by animals, children, or employees, attention should be drawn to the different ways in which humans will treat, train, or manage their robots-in-the-cloud, and how the human–robot interaction may affect the multiple types of information that are appropriate to reveal, share, or transfer, in a given context.