In the Wake of Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company: Applying the Discovery Rule to Determine the Start of the Limitations Period for Pay Discrimination Claims

14 These laws include Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,15 Section 1981 of the Civil War Reconstruction statutes,16 the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA),17 the Equal Pay Act (EPA),18 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA).19 While the statutes define different types of discrimination, each addresses discrimination in employment and defines a limitations period in which an employee can bring a claim.20 With Title VII defining the paradigm, the first step in determining whether a claim is timely under any statute is determining when the discriminatory act takes place.21 To do that, one must identify with care the specific employment practice that is at issue

A Physician\u27s Apology: An Argument against Statutory Protection

After a review of a physician\u27s ethical duty to disclose and the empirical evidence of how open and honest communication between patient and physician actually benefits both the patient and the treating physician, the paper questions whether apologies by health care providers need the protection afforded by these laws. Section II reviews the history of the medical profession\u27s tendency toward silence and the reasons for that silence. Section III examines the state statutes passed to encourage the breaking of this silence. Section IV reviews the state rules of evidence that have traditionally been applied to determine whether or not statements of regret or fault are admissible and examines how these statements affect the outcome of medical malpractice claims. Then, Section V considers a physician\u27s ethical duty of full disclosure and the impact of honest communication between physician and patient. Section VI concludes, based on these considerations, that a physician should disclose mistakes and admit responsibility for those mistakes, and should do so without any special protection if they are sued to answer for those mistakes. Requiring physicians to do the same as what we expect of our children best serves a patient\u27s interests and properly reflects a physician\u27s ethical duty to disclose

Being the Curriculum

This article is a work of creative non-fiction. Part of the work is my reflections on one systemically awkward experience of introducing my neurodivergence, autism, to my classmates in my graduate program in neuroscience. Part of the work engages with theory and neuroscientific/cognitive findings that I either shared during the presentation or encountered since but would have been relevant to the experience. The two parts are intertwined, because life isn\u27t neatly separable

The Limitations of Legislatively Imposed Damages Caps: Proposing a Better Way to Control the Costs of Medical Malpractice

This Article considers whether state damages caps are constitutional and examines recent studies suggesting that damages caps are not achieving their intended goals. Given the mounting evidence against the effectiveness of damages caps and the questions about their constitutional validity, this Article proposes moving away from legislative caps on damages. Instead, this Article argues for a modified market model based on a combination of improved care, which would include improvements in service; better peer review; and, if necessary, legislation which would be designed to protect the confidentiality of peer review, reduce frivolous lawsuits, and regulate insurance rate increases. Part II examines federal and state legislative responses to the call for damages caps. Part III addresses the constitutional issues raised by legislatively imposed limitations on damages awards. Part IV goes beyond these issues to ask whether, even if damages caps pass constitutional muster, these legislative limits offer any real solution to the issue that is really at the heart of the debate: premium rate increases. Part V proposes a solution that combines market forces and legislative controls to regulate insurance rate increases, enhance peer review, and reduce frivolous lawsuits

The Limitations of Legislatively Imposed Damages Caps: Proposing a Better Way to Control the Costs of Medical Malpractice

This Article considers whether state damages caps are constitutional and examines recent studies suggesting that damages caps are not achieving their intended goals. Given the mounting evidence against the effectiveness of damages caps and the questions about their constitutional validity, this Article proposes moving away from legislative caps on damages. Instead, this Article argues for a modified market model based on a combination of improved care, which would include improvements in service; better peer review; and, if necessary, legislation which would be designed to protect the confidentiality of peer review, reduce frivolous lawsuits, and regulate insurance rate increases. Part II examines federal and state legislative responses to the call for damages caps. Part III addresses the constitutional issues raised by legislatively imposed limitations on damages awards. Part IV goes beyond these issues to ask whether, even if damages caps pass constitutional muster, these legislative limits offer any real solution to the issue that is really at the heart of the debate: premium rate increases. Part V proposes a solution that combines market forces and legislative controls to regulate insurance rate increases, enhance peer review, and reduce frivolous lawsuits

The Legacy of Brown v. Board of Education: Achieving Student Body Diversity in All Levels of Education

This Article addresses the legal standard by which school admissions programs may be judged and validated as school districts struggle to achieve student body diversity. As the Supreme Court recognized in its seminal decision, Brown v. Board of Education, education “is the very foundation of good citizenship.” Twenty years after that case was decided, Thurgood Marshall, who had argued that separate was not equal in the Brown case, observed as a Justice of the Court that “unless our children begin to learn together, there is little hope that our people will ever learn to live together.” Because achieving student body diversity cannot be separated from a consideration of the race of the students, school admission programs face a constitutional challenge, whether they consider race as part of its selection process or do not consider the racial composition of their student bodies and are, therefore, not diverse. Taking center stage in this struggle is Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, a highly selective magnet school that was recently sued by a coalition of parents of Asian American students challenging changes it made to its admissions policy. A federal district court has invalidated the program on equal protection grounds, and an appeal of that decision is currently pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Although the Supreme Court has twice upheld race-conscious plans used by colleges and universities, there is some question whether the Court will apply this precedent to elementary, middle, or high school plans or whether the Court will continue to allow race to be considered in any admissions program at any level of education. In light of the importance of diversity in this nation’s classrooms, which the Supreme Court has repeatedly noted, the principles established by the Supreme Court upholding race-conscious admissions plans should continue to apply and should not be limited to colleges and universities but should apply with equal force to elementary, middle, and high school admissions programs. If these principles are not applied to these programs or if the Supreme Court invalidates any consideration of race in admissions programs at all levels of education, then the late Justice Ginsburg’s warning will come to pass: Schools will not stop considering every characteristic of applicants, including race, to achieve student body diversity but will instead resort to “winks, nods, and disguises” to achieve that goal. If the principles are applied, and schools are permitted to consider race as one factor of many for each applicant, then the Brown v. Board of Education legacy will endure, and schools can work openly to achieve diversity at all levels of education

The Road Map to Attaining Diversity in the Workplace: How Race-Conscious Admissions Programs in Education Can Lead the Way

This Article … considers the tension that exists between the goal of achieving diversity in United States’ classrooms and workplaces in light of the limitations placed on the consideration of a person’s race, color, gender, or ethnicity and the differences in the law that controls employment and education. Section II reviews the constitutional and federal guarantees of equal protection across all sectors of society, focusing specifically on education and the workplace. Section III examines the current standard for the permissible consideration of race in university admissions programs, which stands in stark contrast to the impermissible consideration of race in employment decisions, discussed in Section IV. Section V proposes that the law governing employment may have to change to allow employers to achieve diversity by acknowledging that race is a factor, but only one factor of many, in an employment decision, as it has been upheld in university admission decisions. In Section VI, the Article concludes that the law should change to allow for the open consideration of race in employment, as in education, so that companies and organizations do not “resort to camouflage” to achieve their diversity goals. If the law in employment does not change, then, as Justice Ginsburg warned, employers will be left with no choice but to achieve diversity “through winks, nods, and disguises.

Pulling the Rug Out From Under (Neuro)Divergence in the Divergent Universe

Veronica Roth’s Divergent series explicitly portrays neurological diversity, along with questions of identity, family, class, choice, values, and power. It is often considered an empowering narrative for people who do not fit in, a common experience among the teen readers who are the intended audience of most young adult literature. However, it is not clear that this narrative truly supports neurodivergent people, despite neurogenetic differences being the explicit form of diversity the series’ events hinge upon. This article critically examines the portrayal of neurological difference in Roth’s universe through the neurodiversity paradigm, and finds that neurotypicality is significantly privileged by the narrative. Keywords: Neurodiversity; young adult literature; Veronica Roth; representation; autis

A Physician\u27s Apology: An Argument against Statutory Protection

After a review of a physician\u27s ethical duty to disclose and the empirical evidence of how open and honest communication between patient and physician actually benefits both the patient and the treating physician, the paper questions whether apologies by health care providers need the protection afforded by these laws. Section II reviews the history of the medical profession\u27s tendency toward silence and the reasons for that silence. Section III examines the state statutes passed to encourage the breaking of this silence. Section IV reviews the state rules of evidence that have traditionally been applied to determine whether or not statements of regret or fault are admissible and examines how these statements affect the outcome of medical malpractice claims. Then, Section V considers a physician\u27s ethical duty of full disclosure and the impact of honest communication between physician and patient. Section VI concludes, based on these considerations, that a physician should disclose mistakes and admit responsibility for those mistakes, and should do so without any special protection if they are sued to answer for those mistakes. Requiring physicians to do the same as what we expect of our children best serves a patient\u27s interests and properly reflects a physician\u27s ethical duty to disclose