On New Year’s Day, the most significant piece of civil rights legislation in at least the last fifteen years took effect: The ADA Amendments Act of 2008.  The statute does nothing less than specifically reject four Supreme Court decisions, which previously formed the bedrock for court interpretations of the original Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and broadly expand the number of persons who will be able to claim the protections of the statute.  Starting today, I will be discussing the origins of the statute, its major provisions, and the likely impact on employers and employees alike, as well as those who represent them.  Please let me know if there is anything in particular about the statute that you would like me to focus on and I’ll do my best to accommodate you.  Write me at: Jmook@dimuro.com.

  To listen for free to my podcast on the ADA amendments, click here.

In today’s blog, I will give a general overview of the ADAAA and what it means for you.  This week I’ll take a look at the legislative history of the ADAAA and the remarkable coalition of disability rights and employer groups that led to the enactment of the statute in a contentious political year.

What’s the Purpose of the ADA Amendments Act?

The major focus of the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) is to expand the scope of coverage of those who are deemed “disabled” and entitled to the protections of the statute.  In the past, the statute has been interpreted by the courts, and in particular, the Supreme Court, as being a narrowly based, targeted statute to prohibit discrimination against individuals with very severe impairments which result in permanent or long lasting and substantial limitations on major life activities.

This narrow definition of disability has been criticized by many disability rights advocates as creating a Catch-22 situation.  In order to be covered under the strict definition of “disability” one had to show that he or she was unable to perform various life activities central to most people’s daily lives due to a physical or mental impairment.  However, if one could make such a showing, then, in most circumstances, that person would be unable to perform the essential functions of the job the person held or desired – even if reasonable accommodations were available.  In other words, being able to establish that one was both “disabled” and “qualified” to do the job was as likely as the proverbial camel going through the eye of the needle.

The ADA Amendments Act eliminates this Catch-22 situation.  While generally retaining the existing statutory definition of who is an individual with a disability, the Act expands the scope of ADA coverage in four significant ways:

• The statute adopts a rule of construction which requires that the term “disability” be construed broadly.
• In determining whether or not a physical or mental impairment substantially limits a major life activity (the definition from the original ADA), the statute states that the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures (such as medication, prosthetic devices, or various reasonable accommodations) should not be part of the equation.  In other words, if an individual with severe high blood pressure is able to keep his blood pressure under control with medication, whether that person is “disabled” under the ADAAA is to be analyzed without the person’s use of the medication.  This is a major change from existing law.
• The statute expands the scope of persons who may be deemed “regarded as” disabled.  The ADAAA provides that in those circumstances where an employer takes a job action against an individual based upon that person’s physical or mental impairment, it does not matter whether the employer regarded that impairment as substantially limiting.  The only caveat is that the impairment must be of an actual or expected duration of six months or more.  In other words, a person with a broken leg cannot be regarded as disabled.
• Finally, the ADAAA specifically targets four Supreme Court decisions that severely limited the scope of protections under the ADA and expresses Congress’ rejection of those decisions. (Sutton v. United Air Lines, Murphy v. UPS, Kirkinburg v. Albertson’s, Inc. and Toyota v. Williams).  In its place, the ADAAA states that courts should interpret the definition of disability to ensure a broad scope of coverage under the statute.

Starting this week, I will be discussing the specifics of the legislation in more detail.  In the meantime, if you have questions, just email them to me.

Publisher's Note: To purchase Jonathan Mook's pamphlet on the "ADA Amendments Act of 2008", call LexisNexis Customer Service at 1-800-833-9844. The ISBN is 978-1-4224-7105-0. Price is $96, effective through 12/31/2009.