Genetic discrimination: Huntington's disease and the Americans with Disabilities Act

This Note discusses the potential for genetic discrimination, current views as to whether genetic conditions will be covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and the specific issue of whether presymptomatic persons who test positive for Huntington's disease should be classified as persons with a "disability" within the meaning of the ADA. In considering whether presymptomatic Huntington's individuals have a disability under the ADA, an analogy is made between Huntington's disease and HIV-positive status. Inter alia, Huntington's disease and HIV-positive status are analogous in that, at the time of diagnosis, victims of both diseases may have no symptoms and may remain healthy for a number of years; but even though the exact time of onset of both diseases is unascertainable, death of both victims within a given range of years is highly likely. Further, both Huntington's disease and HIV are transmitted to offspring at a relatively high rate. Given these similarities, the author argues that Huntington's individuals should be afforded the protections of the ADA for the same reasons that HIV-positive persons are protected.     

EEOC guidance on psychiatric disabilities: many problems, few workable solutions

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.     

Explaining “Pain and Suffering” Awards: The Role of Injury Characteristics and Fault Attributions

The present research explored factors thought to affect compensatory awards for non-economic ham (pain and suffering) in personal injury cases. Experiment 1 showed that the nature and severity of the plaintiffs injury had a strong effect on perceptions of the extent of harm suffered and on award amounts. The parties' relatively active or passive roles in causing the injury affected assessments of their degree of fault, but perceived fault had little influence on awards. Experiment 2 replicated with more varied cases the strong impact of injury severity on harm perception and on awards for pain and suffering. In both studies, the disability and the mental suffering associated with injuries were stronger predictors of awards than were pain and disfigurement.