Suchergebnisse

Part of the Biomedical Law and Ethics Library series, this book explores discrimination in the issues of life, death and disability. Covering social and legal responses it examines disabled peopleâ??s right to life, end of life and euthanasia.

According to the German disability law, or Schwerbehindertengesetz, either six percent of all jobs in an establishment must be occupied by bisabled employees or the firm has to pay a penalty of DM 200 per month for every job under consideration. This note reports results from the first econometric investigation of the impact of this rule on job dynamics in small firms. Based on data from the IAB Establishment Panel we find no clear-cut evidence that employment in establishments at the first theshold of the law reacts differently on demand shocks than establishments below or above the threshold.

AbstractWe consider the findings of a study of the experiences of Postgraduate Researchers with Disabilities and explore how this relates to academic freedom. Drawing upon the provisions of the Public Sector Equality Duty and Indirect Discrimination within the Equality Act (2010), we note that a range of existing public policy practices, such as the operation of the REF, are likely to be in breach of these obligations. We recommend revisions to existing practice that speak more widely to the general concern of academic freedom, suggesting that a consideration of anti‐discrimination law – rather than a purely intellectually focussed agenda – represents a pragmatic means towards shaping the inclusivity of higher education policy going forwards.

This interdisciplinary collection of essays addresses the theoretical, practical and legal dimensions of equality for persons with disabilities. The issues covered include the central problem of defining disability and impairment; the dilemma of same versus different treatment; the balance between autonomy and external influence and support; linkages to other anti-discrimination categories such as race and sex; the place of disability theory within identity politics; and issues of life, death, and our most intimate relationships. The articles reflect a wealth of international viewpoints and interdisciplinary areas which include philosophy, economics, memoirs, cultural studies, empirical studies and legal scholarship. The selection also includes classic texts which set out foundational ideas such as the social model of disability or the goal of integration, alongside essays that critique these conceptual mainstays. This volume brings into sharp focus a wide range of contentious and complex issues in the field of disability studies and is of interest to researchers and students from a wide range of fields. ; https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/books/1051/thumbnail.jpg

The COVID-19 pandemic is having devastating consequences for people with substance use disorders (SUD). SUD is a chronic health condition—like people with other chronic health conditions, people with SUD experience periods of remission and periods of exacerbation and relapse. Unlike people with most other chronic conditions, people with SUD who experience a relapse may face criminal charges and incarceration. They are chronically disadvantaged by pervasive social stigma, discrimination, and structural inequities. People with SUD are also at higher risk for both contracting the SARS-CoV-19 virus and experiencing poorer outcomes. Meanwhile, there are early indications that pandemic conditions have led to new and increased drug use, and overdose deaths are surging. More than ever, people with SUDs need access to evidence-based treatment and other services without structural barriers and with civil rights protections. To that end, a new provision in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Securities Act (CARES Act) strengthens penalties for the wrongful disclosure of SUD treatment records as well as addresses discrimination in multiple settings based on the misuse of those records. People with SUD reasonably fear negative treatment and discrimination if their condition is exposed. To address this barrier, federal law strictly protects the confidentiality of SUD treatment records. These protections have existed for nearly 50 years; however, the stringent requirements have been blamed for hampered and even deadly treatment decisions by health care providers who do not have access to SUD treatment records. Section 3221 of the CARES Act, effective March 2021, enacts the first major statutory changes to SUD treatment record confidentiality since 1992 and is aimed at improving information sharing among SUD treatment providers and other health care providers. But increased information sharing also creates concerns about information misuse and discrimination, and the possibility of renewed treatment avoidance. To address the tension between the benefits of information sharing and the possible harms of discrimination after disclosure, Section 3221 strengthens the disclosure penalties to align with HIPAA. It also adds an entirely new nondiscrimination provision which prohibits discriminatory use by recipients of disclosed SUD treatment information in areas including health care, employment and receipt of worker's compensation, rental or sale of housing, access to courts, and social services and benefits funded by federal, state, or local governments. This essay provides the first analysis of the new nondiscrimination protections in Section 3221 of CARES Act for individuals with SUD using the framework of existing protections against disability-based discrimination in the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and the Fair Housing Act. We propose that as the new protections of Section 3221 are implemented through regulations, guidance, and enforcement, they should be understood within the context of existing disability nondiscrimination laws as well as the specific purpose of Section 3221 to ensure that discrimination against such people does not continue to serve as a barrier to seeking treatment. We offer three insights to achieve this goal. First, the new protections should be understood to include current illegal substance users and should be construed broadly. Second, the scope of entities covered by the new protections should be interpreted consistently with existing definitions in laws that prohibit disability-based discrimination in employment, public programs, services, and activities, health care, and housing. Finally, robust enforcement must be coupled with educational initiatives about the pervasive discrimination faced by people with SUDs, and new and existing nondiscrimination requirements that protect them.

American disability discrimination laws contain few intent requirements. Yet courts frequently demand showings of intent in disability discrimination lawsuits. Intent requirements arose almost by accident: through a false statutory analogy; by repetition of obsolete judicial language; and by doctrine developed to avoid a nonexistent conflict with another law. Demanding that section 504 and Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") claimants show intent imposes a burden not found in those statutes or their interpretive regulations. This Article provides reasons not to impose intent requirements for liability or monetary relief in section 504 and ADA cases concerning reasonable accommodations. It demonstrates that no intent requirement applies to ADA employment cases, then explains that the same conclusion should apply to cases under the ADA's state and local government provisions and section 504. It rebuts an analogy to caselaw under Title VI and Title IX of the Civil Rights Act that some courts use to impose intent requirements. It then discusses the reasoning of cases relying on the inappropriate analogy, cases resting on obsolete precedent, and cases refusing to apply remedies to avoid conflicting with federal law. This Article relies on a contextual reading of Supreme Court decisions, the history of the ADA, and policy considerations.

This book provides a concise guide to international disability law. It analyses the case law of the CRPD Committee and other international human rights treaty bodies, and provides commentaries on more than 50 leading cases. The author elaborates on the obligations of States Parties under the CRPD and other international treaties, while also spelling out the rights of persons with disabilities, and the different mechanisms that exist at both domestic and international levels for ensuring that those rights are respected, protected and promoted. The author also delineates the traditional differentiation between civil and political rights on the one hand, and economic, social and cultural rights on the other. He demonstrates, through analysis of the evolving case law, how the gap between these two sets of rights is gradually closing. The result is a powerful tool for political decisionmakers, academics, legal practitioners, law students, persons with disabilities and their representative organisations, human rights activists and general readers.

While advances in science and technology bring many advantages, we must not ignore the harm that they can cause. Rapid changes in genetic testing are a prime example, and indicators can now help to detect, address and treat diseases. However, in this new study, Aisling de Paor examines how genetic testing is also being used for non-medical reasons, for example for work opportunities and insurance coverage. Genetics, Disability and the Law is the first book of its kind to substantively consider an EU-level response to the use of genetic information. de Paor discusses how to help genetic and scientific research to evolve and grow, how to enhance public confidence in research, and how to control it so that it recognises our values and fundamental human rights. An understudied but vitally important topic, de Paor's work provides a valuable and timely contribution to the field of disability rights