美国残疾人法案之后的福利计划限制。

Employee relations law journal Pub Date : 1993-01-01
D A Copus, G D Nager
{"title":"美国残疾人法案之后的福利计划限制。","authors":"D A Copus,&nbsp;G D Nager","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Virtually all company welfare benefit plans contain one or more disability-specific benefit limitations. The Americans with Disabilities Act casts doubt on the lawfulness of these limitations. The legislative history of the ADA is confusing, and the EEOC's failure to offer meaningful guidance on this issue further clouds the situation. Based on the Supreme Court's prior interpretation of language similar to that used in the ADA, we believe all disability-specific limitations adopted prior to the ADA are entitled to a \"safe harbor\"; disability-specific limitations adopted after Congress passed the ADA are still lawful unless the limitations are intentionally used to discriminate in a nonbenefit aspect of employment.</p>","PeriodicalId":79590,"journal":{"name":"Employee relations law journal","volume":"19 1","pages":"77-89"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1993-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Benefit plan limitations after the Americans with Disabilities Act.\",\"authors\":\"D A Copus,&nbsp;G D Nager\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Virtually all company welfare benefit plans contain one or more disability-specific benefit limitations. The Americans with Disabilities Act casts doubt on the lawfulness of these limitations. The legislative history of the ADA is confusing, and the EEOC's failure to offer meaningful guidance on this issue further clouds the situation. Based on the Supreme Court's prior interpretation of language similar to that used in the ADA, we believe all disability-specific limitations adopted prior to the ADA are entitled to a \\\"safe harbor\\\"; disability-specific limitations adopted after Congress passed the ADA are still lawful unless the limitations are intentionally used to discriminate in a nonbenefit aspect of employment.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":79590,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Employee relations law journal\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"77-89\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1993-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Employee relations law journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Employee relations law journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

几乎所有的公司福利计划都包含一个或多个针对残疾人的福利限制。《美国残疾人法案》对这些限制的合法性提出了质疑。《美国残疾人法》的立法历史令人困惑,而平等就业机会委员会未能在这一问题上提供有意义的指导,使情况更加扑朔迷蒙。根据最高法院先前对与《美国残疾人法》类似的语言的解释,我们认为,在《美国残疾人法》之前采用的所有残疾特定限制都有权享有“安全港”;国会通过《美国残疾人法》后采用的针对残疾人的限制仍然是合法的,除非这些限制被故意用于在就业的非福利方面进行歧视。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Benefit plan limitations after the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Virtually all company welfare benefit plans contain one or more disability-specific benefit limitations. The Americans with Disabilities Act casts doubt on the lawfulness of these limitations. The legislative history of the ADA is confusing, and the EEOC's failure to offer meaningful guidance on this issue further clouds the situation. Based on the Supreme Court's prior interpretation of language similar to that used in the ADA, we believe all disability-specific limitations adopted prior to the ADA are entitled to a "safe harbor"; disability-specific limitations adopted after Congress passed the ADA are still lawful unless the limitations are intentionally used to discriminate in a nonbenefit aspect of employment.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信