No abstract

My empirical study first replicates and then extends a prior preliminary empirical study by Cass Sunstein and Judy Shih of sexual harassment damages awards. It covers a comprehensive set of 232 cases in which plaintiffs won some positive amount of compensatory damages from state and federal, trial and appellate court decisions from 1982-2004 (published either in official reporters or solely on Westlaw). Contrary to Sunstein and Shih's finding, my analysis of these data reveals a consistent, and statistically significant, positive relationship between punitive and compensatory damages (at least in cases where punitive damages are awarded). My new empirical study then employs dependent variables that, in my view, are more theoretically and statistically sound than those employed by Sunstein and Shih and others who have focused exclusively on the relationship between punitive and compensatory damages: total combined damages (i.e., all compensatory and punitive damages), and what I term "outrage" damages, or combined noneconomic compensatory and punitive damages. My empirical results, using these new dependent variables, essentially confirm Sunstein and Shih's conclusions regarding the irrelevance of variables pertaining to the nature and severity of harassment. What my study reveals as crucial predictive factors, by contrast, are factors pertaining to damages limitations. My study highlights that these factors-including the for insightful substantive comments, and to Ted Eisenberg, Marty Wells, and an anonymous referee for technical suggestions. Cass Sunstein and Judy Shih graciously shared data from their preliminary empirical study. Wen Tang and Mehdi Miremadi provided tremendous assistance with data collection and coding and analysis, respectively.

for providing positive feedback, skepticism, and criticism in conversations and comments on previous drafts. Finally, I thank Daphna Renan and The Yale Law Journal editors for editorial assistance and the Reference Librarians at Columbia Law School for their tremendous effort at gathering source materials. Notwithstanding such a tremendous array of critical input, all errors remain my own.

Cancer predictive or diagnostic assays, offered as Laboratory-Developed Tests (LDTs), have been subject to regulatory authority and enforcement discretion by the US Food and Drug Administration. Many LDTs enter the market without US Food and Drug Administration or any regulatory review. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments focuses on analytic performance, but has limited oversight of the quality or utility of LDTs, including whether patients have been harmed as a result of their use. Increasingly, LDTs for cancer risk or early detection have been marketed directly to consumers, with many LDT developers depicting these tests, requested by patients but ordered by personal or company-associated physicians, as procedures falling under the practice of medicine. This patchwork of regulation and enforcement uncertainty regarding LDTs and public concerns about accuracy of tests given emergency authorization during the COVID-19 pandemic led to the Verifying Accurate Leading-edge IVCT (in vitro clinical test) Development Act of 2021. This pending federal legislation represents an opportunity to harmonize regulatory policies and address growing concerns over quality, utility, and safety of LDTs for cancer genomics, including tests marketed directly to consumers. We review here questions regarding the potential benefits and harms of some cancer-related LDTs for cancer risk and presymptomatic molecular diagnosis, increasingly marketed to oncologists or directly to the worried well. We offer specific proposals to strengthen oversight of the accuracy and clinical utility of cancer genetic testing to ensure public safety.