The "Findings and Purposes" section of the legislation cites specific U.S. Supreme Court cases that have led to lower courts "incorrectly" ruling in individual cases that people with a range of substantially limiting life impairments are not people with disabilities. The amendments do retain the ADA's definition of "disability:"
A physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of the individual.
- A record of such an impairment.
- Being regarded as having such an impairment.
However, the amendments add language that provides a non-exhaustive list of major life activities, including routine activities such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating and working. They also clarify that a major life activity includes the operation of major bodily functions. Furthermore, the amendments specify that the definition of "disability" be construed "in favor of broad coverage." This means, for example, that an impairment that substantially limits one major life activity need not limit other major life activities in order to be considered a disability, and that an impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active.
These provisions address the U.S. Supreme Court case of Toyota Motor Manufacturing of Kentucky v. Williams, which narrowly defined "major life activity" as one that is of central importance to most people's lives. The Williams case also required that, in order for an impairment to be viewed as "substantially limiting" a major life activity, it must prevent or severely limit the individual from performing the activity. The amendments clearly apply a much broader standard for ADA protection to apply.
In Sutton v. United Airlines, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that mitigating measures, such as medication or devices, must be taken into account in determining whether a person is substantially limited in a major life activity. Under such an interpretation, for example, an individual with epilepsy was not protected by the ADA if he or she took medication that controlled the condition. The amendments specify that, with the exception of ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses, the determination of whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity is to be made without regard to the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures. Examples given of such mitigating measures include medication, medical supplies, low-vision devices, prosthetics, hearing aids, mobility devices, oxygen therapy equipment, and the like; use of assistive technology; reasonable accommodations or auxiliary aids or services; or learned behavioral or adaptive neurological modifications.
The amendments also remove some language from the ADA that courts had relied upon to interpret the law narrowly. For example, the original ADA included a finding that approximately 43 million Americans have one or more physical disabilities, and that "individuals with disabilities are a discrete and insular minority." In both the Williams and Sutton cases, the U.S. Supreme Court cited this language to set a strict standard for being protected by the law.
As a result of these changes, many more employees may be considered disabled under the ADA and thus fall under the law's protections, including the requirement that an employer provide reasonable accommodation. With these changes to the ADA, now would be a good time to review your company's policies, procedures and handbooks with your attorney to make sure your company is in compliance with these legal requirements.
