Odem Nathan, Blanck Peter
College of Law, University of Iowa, Iowa City 52242-1113, USA.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2003 Feb 1;28(3):309-13. doi: 10.1097/01.BRS.0000046933.27115.B1.
This article examines the application of Americans with Disabilities Act requirements to professional associations like physician practice groups. In general, employers with 15 or more full-time employees must comply with the Act. However, the definition of an employee is sometimes unclear, especially as applied to business entities commonly used by physician practice groups. A recent case decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that physician-shareholders of a professional corporation are employees for Americans with Disabilities Act coverage purposes. Analogous cases in other federal circuits have held differently, likening the "owners" of professional corporations to partners in a partnership, who are not considered employees. Similar questions arise for popular business entities, such as Limited Liability Companies and Limited Liability Partnerships. This article discusses the nature of the business forms commonly used by physician practice groups and how their characteristics impact employee status for Americans with Disabilities Act coverage. It then suggests that examination is useful beyond business formation characteristics to the purpose of the Americans with Disabilities Act and other employment antidiscrimination statutes.
本文探讨了《美国残疾人法案》的要求在诸如医师执业团体等专业协会中的应用。一般而言,拥有15名或更多全职员工的雇主必须遵守该法案。然而,员工的定义有时并不明确,尤其是在应用于医师执业团体常用的商业实体时。美国第九巡回上诉法院最近判决的一个案件认定,专业公司的医师股东在《美国残疾人法案》的覆盖范围内属于员工。其他联邦巡回法院的类似案件则有不同的判决结果,将专业公司的“所有者”比作合伙企业中的合伙人,而合伙人不被视为员工。有限责任公司和有限责任合伙企业等常见商业实体也会出现类似问题。本文讨论了医师执业团体常用的商业形式的性质,以及它们的特征如何影响《美国残疾人法案》覆盖范围内的员工身份。然后指出,这种审查不仅对商业形式特征有用,对《美国残疾人法案》及其他就业反歧视法规的目的也有用。