Watershed Moment Within the World of Disability Law

On September 25, President Bush signed the ADA (Americans with Disabilities) Amendments Act of 2008 (the “Amendments Act”), sending shockwaves throughout the employment law community and other interested sectors alike. See the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, PL 110-325, 2008 § 3406. The amendments will take effect on January 1, 2009, and reflect Congress’ dissatisfaction with a series of United States Supreme Court decisions and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (the “EEOC”) narrow interpretation of what constitutes a disability. In fact, the Amendments Act expressly overturned notable Supreme Court precedent that adopted a narrow interpretation of the definition of a “disability,” thereby broadening the scope of the ADA and the protections afforded to disabled Americans. Although the Amendments Act has yet to go into effect, one thing seems reasonably certain — the amendments are likely to change the landscape of disability discrimination case law.

Findings and Purpose

The ADA still provides that no covered employer (employers with 15 or more employees) shall discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability, defined as someone (1) with a physical impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, or (2) who is regarded as having such an impairment. See 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2). When Congress enacted the ADA in 1990, it intended for the act to “provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities” and to provide broad protection to disabled individuals. Notwithstanding this Congressional intent, courts have strictly construed the meaning of a disability under the act. For instance, in Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc, . 527 U.S. 471 (1999), the Supreme Court held that employees whose physical or mental impairments could be corrected by medication or other measures did not have an impairment that substantially limited a major life activity and, therefore, were not disabled within the meaning of the ADA. For the Sutton plaintiffs, whose impaired vision could be completely corrected by eyeglasses, this meant no ADA protection.