This article describes an assessment role performed by clinical psychologists in the employment context, and examines how it has been evaluated by the courts from the standpoint of discrimination against persons with disabilities. Guidelines are offered for making fitness-for-duty decisions which are legally defensible, and examples of the decision-making process are provided. Data-based limitations on professional expertise are articulated, and conclusions drawn are aimed at practicing psychologists and the courts dealing with these uncertainties. Issues are analyzed principally in relation to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which has been passed by both houses of Congress.

Tax exemption is an ancient, honorable and expensive tradition. Tax exemption for hospitals is all of these three, but it also places in sharp focus a fundamental problem with tax exemption in general. Organizations can retain their tax exemption while changing circumstances or expectations undermine the rationale that led to the exemption in the first place. Hospitals are perhaps the best example of this problem. The dramatic changes in the health care environment have eliminated most of the characteristics of a hospital that originally persuaded the citizenry to grant it an exemption. Hospitals have entered into competition with tax-paying businesses, and have increasingly behaved like competitive actors. Such conduct may well be beneficial, but it does not follow that tax exemption is appropriate. Rather than an undifferentiated subsidy, a shift to focused goals will provide charitable hospitals with the opportunity and incentive to “do the right thing.”

Genetic identification tests — better known as DNA profiling — currently allow criminal investigators to connect suspects to physical samples retrieved from a victim or the scene of a crime. A controversial yet acclaimed expansion of DNA analysis is the creation of a massive databank of genetic codes. This Note explores the privacy concerns arising out of the collection and retention of extremely personal information in a central database. The potential for unauthorized access by those not investigating a particular crime compels the implementation of national standards and stringent security measures.

Environmental pollution threatens public health. The search for solutions has advanced the frontiers of science and law. Efforts to protect the environment and public health begin with describing potential adverse consequences of human activities and characterizing the predicted risk. The National Environmental Policy Act requires the preparation of environmental impact statements to describe the effects of proposed federal projects and provide information for agency decisionmakers and the public.

Risks to public health are particularly difficult to quantify because of uncertainty about the relation between exposure to environmental contamination and disease. Risk assessment is the current scientific tool to present estimates of risk. The methodology has created controversy, however, when underlying assumptions and uncertainties are not clearly presented. Critics caution that the methodology is vulnerable to bias. This Note evaluates the use of risk assessment in the environmental impact statement process and offers recommendations to ensure informed decisions.