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.     

The Federalism Debate in the Transformation of Federal Habeas Corpus Law

Over the last several decades, the law governing access to federalhabeas corpus review has undergone a fundamental transformation,moving from a Warren Court approach that focused on individualrights to a Rehnquist Court approach that emphasizes deferenceto state courts. The enduring constitutional debate about thefederal system and the appropriate role of the federal courtsin that system has been at the heart of this transformation.This essay examines the leadership role of the U.S. SupremeCourt and the influence of other institutional actors, suchas the Congress, the executive, and the states, in the shapingof United States "constitutional dialogue" on this issue.