Book reviews

Stephen Chan and Andrew J. Williams (eds), Renegade states: The Evolution of Revolutionary Foreign Policy (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1994).

Adam Roberts and Benedict Kingsbury (eds), United Nations, Divided World. The UN's Role in International Relations 2nd edition (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993)

G. Hastedt and K. Knickrehm, (eds), Toward the Twenty‐first Century. A Reader in World Politics (New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1994).

A. J.R. Groom and Margot Light (eds), Contemporary International Relations: A Guide to Theory (London: Pinter Publishers, 1994).     

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.     

Evaluating adolescent decision making in legal contexts

Challenges the use by policy researchers of a model for comparing adolescent and adult decision making that is based on informed consent standards. An expanded decision-making framework designed to evaluate judgment in adults and adolescents can better test the empirical basis of paternalistic legal policies. The theoretical and empirical literature on the informed consent framework is critiqued and an alternative framework incorporating judgment factors is proposed. Three judgment factors—temporal perspective, attitude toward risk, and peer and parental influence—and their effects on decision making are explored. Finally, implications for future research are analyzed in several decision-making contexts.Several of the ideas in this article were originally presented by the first author and were published as part of a symposium on competence (see Scott, 1992). The current article expands and refines these ideas, provides a more substantial research base, and suggests several future research directions. We thank Joseph Allen, Richard Bonnie, Baruch Fischhoff, William Gardner, John Monahan, Edward Mulvey, Richard Redding, Paul Slovic, and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. Special thanks to Thomas Grisso for providing much constructive criticism and to Wendy Shang for outstanding research assistance. Finally, we would like to acknowledge the MacArthur Foundation, which supported this work in its early stages.     

Mergers and acquisitions: director and consultant liability exposure

Corporate directors and their consultants must make decisions in an uncertain and changing health care environment. The losses each may face as a result of an incomplete analysis of the true value of the entities involved in mergers or acquisitions may extend beyond the failure of the transaction to the creation of personal liability as well. Accordingly, objective, careful, detailed, and fair decision-making based upon adequate information is more critical than ever for directors if they are to be able to take advantage of the business judgment rule, and also for consultants to avoid their own liability when transactions fail to deliver the values they have estimated.     

Commissioner v. Schleier: back to the drawing board on the taxation of employment dispute recoveries

The Court's decision in Schleier leaves the taxation of recoveries arising out of employment disputes, as well as many other types of disputes, in a state of confusion. To be sure, employers and employees now know with certainty that recoveries under the ADEA are not excludable from income under Section 104(a)(2). Recoveries under other statutes, however, including the Fair Labor Standards Act and the 1991 version of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, are altogether unclear after Schleier. In the absence of further guidance, employers should consider adopting a more conservative approach to employment dispute settlements by treating settlement payments as taxable income, subject to withholding and employment taxes.