Back to Connections January 2009 Menu
ADA Amendments Act of 2008
What Made the ADA Amendments Act Necessary?
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 intended to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities. However, since 1990, there have been a number of U.S. Supreme Court decisions that narrowed the definition of disability and resulted in a restriction of protections for many people with disabilities. The ADA Amendments Act of 2008 intends to restore the original intent of the ADA by stating clearly that the ADA is to provide broad coverage to protect anyone who has, or is regarded as having, a disability. Following are the key points of the ADAAA, excerpted from the Statement of the Managers to Accompany S. 3406, The Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008.
Aligning the construction of the Americans with Disabilities Act with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the bill amends Title I of the ADA to provide that no covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual “on the basis of disability.”
The bill maintains the ADA’s inherently functional definition of disability as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more life activities; a record of such impairment; or being regarded as having such an impairment. It clarifies and expands the definition’s meaning and application in the following ways.
First, the bill deletes two findings in the ADA which led the Supreme Court to unduly restrict the meaning and application of the definition of disability. These findings are that there are “some 43,000,000 Americans have one or more physical or mental disabilities” and that “individuals with disabilities are a discrete and insular minority.” The Court treated these findings as limitations on how it construed other provisions of the ADA. This conclusion had the effect of interfering with previous judicial precedents holding that, like other civil rights statutes, the ADA must be construed broadly to effectuate its remedial purpose. Deleting these findings removes this barrier to construing and applying the definition of disability more generously.
Second, the bill affirmatively provides that the definition of disability “shall be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals under this Act, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this Act.” [1] It retains the term “substantially limits” from the original ADA definition but makes it clear that this is intended to be a less demanding standard than that enunciated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams.[2] With this rule of construction and relevant purpose language, the bill rejects the Supreme Court’s holding in Toyota v. Williams that the terms “substantially” and “major” in the definition of disability must be “be interpreted strictly to create a demanding standard for qualifying as disabled,”[3] as well as the Court's interpretation that “substantially limits” means “prevents or severely restricts.”[4]
Third, the bill prohibits consideration of mitigating measures such as medication, assistive technology, accommodations, or modifications when determining whether an impairment constitutes a disability. This provision and relevant purpose language rejects the Supreme Court’s holdings in Sutton v. United Air Lines[5] and its companion cases[6] that mitigating measures must be considered.[7] The bill also provides that impairments that are episodic or in remission are to be assessed in an active state.
Fourth, the bill provides new instruction on what may constitute “major life activities.” It provides a non-exhaustive list of major life activities within the meaning of the ADA. In addition, the bill expands the category of major life activities to include the operation of major bodily functions.
Fifth, the bill removes from the third “regarded as” prong of the disability definition the requirement that an individual demonstrate that he or she has, or is perceived to have, an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity. Under the bill, therefore, an individual can establish coverage under the law by showing that he or she has been subjected to an action prohibited under the Act because of an actual or perceived physical or mental impairment. Because the bill thus broadens application of this third prong of the disability definition, entities covered by the ADA will not be required to provide accommodations or to modify policies and procedures for individuals who fall solely under the third prong. Such entities will, however, still be subject to discrimination claims.
Finally, the bill clarifies that the agencies that currently issue regulations under the ADA have regulatory authority related to the definitions contained in Section 3. Conforming amendments to Section 7 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 are intended to ensure harmony between federal civil rights laws.
The ADA Amendments Act rejects the high burden required in these cases and reiterates that Congress intends that the scope of the Americans with Disabilities Act be broad and inclusive. It is the intent of the legislation to establish a degree of functional limitation required for an impairment to constitute a disability that is consistent with what Congress originally intended, a degree that is lower than what the courts have construed it to be. In addition, the bill provides for application of this standard to a wider range of cases by expanding the category of major life activities. These steps, resulting from extensive bipartisan negotiation and discussion among legislators and stakeholders, are intended to provide for more generous coverage and application of the ADA’s prohibition on discrimination through a framework that is more predictable, consistent, and workable for all entities subject to responsibilities under the ADA.
______________________________
[1] This rule of construction is consistent with earlier judicial precedents and parallels the rule of construction in the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, which Congress unanimously passed in 2002.
[2] Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002).
[3] Id. at 197.
[4] Id. at 198. See also, 29 CFR 1630.2.
[5] Sutton v. United Airlines, 527 U.S. 471 (1999).
[6] Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 527 U.S. 516 (1999), Albertson’s, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. 555 (1999).
[7] Ordinary eyeglasses and contact lenses are excluded from this prohibition.