This article accompanies my general article from today on disability discrimination law. On the important threshold issue of whether an employee is even protected by the ADA, that is controlled by whether the employee has a disability as defined by the ADA. The federal law on that issue is dramatically different before and after 2008, as I explain below, so everyone has to be very careful about relying on law before 2008 for the ADA.
The ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) was enacted to restore and expand protections under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) after Supreme Court decisions had significantly narrowed the scope of what qualified as a “disability.” The law took effect on January 1, 2009.
Key Changes Made by the ADAAA
The ADAAA made several critical amendments to the ADA, primarily by broadening the definition of disability and rejecting previous restrictive judicial interpretations. Here are the main changes:
- Expanded Definition of Disability
- The ADAAA reaffirmed that disability should be interpreted broadly to include more individuals.
- The definition of “disability” remained the same (i.e., a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a record of such an impairment, or being regarded as having an impairment), but Congress clarified that the term “substantially limits” should be interpreted expansively.
- Major Life Activities Clarified and Expanded
- The ADAAA provided a non-exhaustive list of major life activities, including:
- Walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, and working.
- Major bodily functions were explicitly included, such as immune system function, normal cell growth, and neurological, brain, respiratory, and endocrine functions.
- The ADAAA provided a non-exhaustive list of major life activities, including:
- Mitigating Measures No Longer Considered
- The law overturned previous rulings that allowed courts to consider mitigating measures (e.g., medication, assistive devices) when determining if an individual had a disability.
- Now, except for ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses, the determination of whether an individual has a disability must be made without considering the ameliorative effects of treatments or devices.
- Episodic or Remission-Based Conditions Covered
- Conditions that are episodic (e.g., epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, bipolar disorder) or in remission (e.g., cancer) are now explicitly covered if they substantially limit a major life activity when active.
- Broadened “Regarded As” Standard
- Previously, plaintiffs had to prove that their employer believed their condition substantially limited a major life activity.
- Under the ADAAA, a person is “regarded as” disabled if they are subjected to an adverse action because of an actual or perceived impairment, regardless of whether the impairment limits a major life activity.
- Employers are not required to provide accommodations to individuals who are “regarded as” disabled unless they meet the definition under the first prong.
- Reduced Employer Defenses
- The ADAAA explicitly stated that the definition of disability should be interpreted broadly and in favor of coverage.
- Courts must focus on whether discrimination occurred, not on whether the individual meets the definition of disability.
Supreme Court Decisions Overturned by the ADAAA
The ADAAA overturned several U.S. Supreme Court decisions that had narrowed the definition of disability, including:
- Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999)
- The Court held that mitigating measures (such as corrective lenses, medication, or prosthetics) must be considered when determining whether a person is disabled.
- Overturned: The ADAAA now requires disability determinations to be made without considering mitigating measures (except for ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses).
- Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002)
- The Court ruled that a disability must “prevent or severely restrict” an individual from performing activities that are “of central importance to most people’s daily lives.”
- Overturned: The ADAAA clarified that “substantially limits” is meant to be interpreted broadly and should not impose a demanding standard.
- Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 527 U.S. 516 (1999)
- The Court found that an individual with high blood pressure controlled by medication was not disabled because the condition, when medicated, did not substantially limit a major life activity.
- Overturned: The ADAAA’s provision that mitigating measures should not be considered.
- Albertson’s, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. 555 (1999)
- The Court ruled that an individual with monocular vision was not disabled under the ADA because his brain compensated for the impairment.
- Overturned: The ADAAA now ensures that individuals with impairments that substantially limit major life activities, even if their bodies adjust, are still protected.
Impact of the ADAAA
- The amendments broadened protections for employees and individuals seeking reasonable accommodations.
- The focus of litigation shifted from whether a person is disabled to whether discrimination occurred and whether the employer provided reasonable accommodations.
- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) updated its regulations to reflect the ADAAA’s broader interpretation, making it easier for employees to bring disability discrimination claims.
Conclusion
The ADA Amendments Act of 2008 was a legislative response to restrictive Supreme Court rulings that significantly narrowed the ADA’s protections. By broadening the scope of “disability,” eliminating the mitigating measures rule, covering episodic conditions, and expanding the “regarded as” standard, the ADAAA ensured that the law’s original intent—to protect individuals with disabilities—was restored and strengthened.
