UIC Law Open Access Repository
Not a member yet
4764 research outputs found
Sort by
Workplace Wellness Incentive Plans: The Legal Labyrinth Employers Must Navigate, 22 Quinnipiac Health L.J. 335 (2019)
No full textWorkplace wellness programs are extremely popular with employers, aiming to promote better health while preventing and controling diseases for employees and their dependents. Such wellness plans can be incorporated into the employer\u27s group health plan or act as a stand-alone plan. Plans range from providing education about unhealthy lifestyles, to granting financial incentives for attaining certain health standards (e.g., cholesterol level) - the latter with a better chance of improving health and preventing disease. Offering financial incentives under a wellness program is not new. Congress affirmed the use of financial incentives under HIPPA through their expansion under the ACA, in an effort to balance employers\u27 interest in wellness programs against HIPAA\u27s prohibition of discrimination on health status. Recent EEOC regulations are under attack under the ADA and GINA, affirming the use of certain financial incentives in voluntary wellness programs that use medical exams and/or request genetic health information. A district court in the District of Columbia vacated those regulations until 2019, sending the EEOC back to the drawing board in formulating its guidance. In the meantime, employers struggle with offering these wellness programs in the face of potential litigation. This article traces the legal journey that workplace wellness plans have had to travel as they comply with a variety of different federal statutes, each with different goals and outcomes
Understanding Crime Gravity: Exploring the Views of International Criminal Law Experts, 27 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 659 (2019)
Get PDF
The Forking Phenomenon and The Future of Cryptocurrency in the Law, 19 UIC Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 1 (2019)
Get PDFIn the evolving and ever-changing world of cryptocurrency, new and exciting phenomena arise, including hard forks. Hard forks occur when two groups supporting a cryptocurrency disagree on how the code should evolve. If the changes are incompatible, the code diverges into two chains, essentially doubling the amount of each holder’s coin. Forking a coin is theoretically easy. However, maintaining a fork requires great effort and support by members of the community. This Article discusses the November 15, 2018 Bitcoin Cash hard fork and subsequent lawsuit, analyzing anti-trust, negligence, and conversion claims. Forcing de facto fiduciary duties on developers and miners fails to consider that cryptocurrency is a product, likening developers to copyright holders, and the basic premises of fiduciary law. Next, this Article examines the effect of lawsuits on crypto-communities, including legal and economic ramifications of hard forks. While developers may hold some power in cryptocurrency management, external regulations would be impractical and lead to serious ramifications. This Article proposes that developers and miners should protect themselves through contract law and public blockchain networks should be treated as pseudo-sovereigns with internal regulations, for situations such as hard forks
