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.     

How stable is party identification?

This essay refines and extends our argument (Green and Palmquist, 1990) that net of the distorting effects of measurement error, Americans' partisanship tends to be highly stable over time. Three challenges to this thesis are addressed. In response to doubts about the generalizability of our earlier findings to panel studies of longer duration or from other eras, we show that nine multi-wave panel studies yield similar results. Next, we take up the question of whether our model can account for observed patterns of partisan conversion. The rate of party-switching forces some modifications in the statistical assumptions used to model party identification over time, but a revised model which can account for inter-party change reproduces earlier findings of partisan stability. Third, we grapple with the question of how our findings square with fluctuations in what has been termed macropartisanship. We suggest that aggregate shifts in party identification need not be incompatible with strong over-time correlations at the individual level. Finally, we develop a simulation of micropartisanship to illustrate that over long stretches of time very gradual changes in partisanship can accumulate to produce appreciable levels of micropartisan change.Donald Philip Green, Yale University.Bradley Palmquist, Harvard University.An earlier version of this paper was presented at the annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois, September 3–6, 1992.     

Does the federal Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 create a hole in ERISA preemption?

ERISA's board preemption provision has survived many challenges to its scope and effect. Now it may have succumbed in the face of a few statements tucked into the legislative history of the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). Language in the legislative history presents the view that the Act was meant to overturn ERISA preemption of state family and medical leave laws. The text of the FMLA contains no corroborating language to support that view. However, at least one court found the statements in the legislative history to be persuasive and ruled that under the FMLA, ERISA does not preempt state family and medical leave laws that regulate ERISA plans. If other courts follow that decision, there will be great implications to employee benefit plan regulation and administration. This article explores the court's decision and the relationship between the FMLA and ERISA preemption.