Articles

The Americans with Disabilities Act Gets Much Needed Overhaul

By Denise Y. Tataryn, Attorney at Law

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a landmark civil rights law, was signed into law on July 26, 1990 by President George H. W. Bush. The ADA outlaws discrimination against individuals with disabilities at work and in public life, and has helped millions of Americans with disabilities to be able to work and continue working. However, over the last decade, court decisions have narrowly interpreted the ADA, leaving many disabled individuals without coverage. Congress responded by passing the ADA Amendments Act, and on September 25, 2008, President George W. Bush signed the Act into law. The ADA Amendments Act was supported by employer groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and disability groups alike. The amendments clarify the intended broad application of the ADA, leaving the language of the ADA intact for the most part, but providing definitional changes and rules of construction in interpreting the Act.

The ADA of 1990 prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in employment, public services, public accommodations, and in telecommunications. To be protected by the ADA, an individual must have a disability or have a relationship or association with an individual with a disability. An individual with a disability is defined by the ADA as a person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; a person who has a history or record of such impairment; or a person who is perceived by others as having such impairment. The ADA requires employers with 15 or more employees to provide qualified individuals with disabilities an equal opportunity to benefit from employment/related opportunities. It prohibits discrimination in recruitment, hiring, promotions, training, pay, social activities and other privileges of employment. The law further requires employers to make reasonable accommodation to the known physical or mental limitations of otherwise qualified individuals with disabilities, unless it results in undue hardship to the employer.

The Act defines a "qualified individual with a disability" as "an individual with a disability who, with or with out reasonable accommodation can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires." Merely having impairment does not make one disabled under the ADA. Claimants must also demonstrate that the impairment limits a major life activity, such as walking, seeing, hearing, and performing manual tasks.

The two Supreme Court decisions that were specifically overruled by the ADA Amendments Act were Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc., decided in 1999, and Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, decided in 2002. The Supreme Court decisions had construed the terms "disability" and "significantly limits a major life activity" narrowly and drastically restricted the class of workers who could rely on the ADA to secure equal employment opportunities.

In Sutton, severely myopic job applicants brought an ADA disability discrimination action against United Airlines, challenging the Airline's minimum vision requirement for global pilots. The job applicants were invited to an interview, but were told during the interviews that a mistake had been made in inviting them because they did not meet the Airline's minimum vision requirement, which was uncorrected visual acuity of 20/100 or better. The job applicants argued that due to their severe myopia, they have a substantially limiting impairment or are regarded as having such impairment and thus are disabled under the Act. They contended that whether impairment is substantially limiting under the Act should be determined without regard to corrective measures (wearing eyeglasses).

The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that if the impairment is corrected, it does not substantially limit a major life activity. The Court then reviewed whether the job applicants were regarded as having a disability. There was no dispute that the job applicants were physically impaired, but the court did not find they were substantially limited in their ability to engage in a major life activity of working, because they were unable to work in one type of job, not in a broad class of jobs. Because the position of global airline pilot is just one type of job, the plaintiffs did not have a substantially limiting impairment.

In Toyota, an employee claimed she was unable to perform her automobile assembly line job because she was disabled by carpal tunnel syndrome and related impairments. Her former employer failed to provide her with a reasonable accommodation. Plaintiff argued that she was disabled under the ADA on the ground that her physical impairment substantially limited her in manual tasks, housework, gardening, playing with her children, lifting and working, all of which she argued constituted major life activities under the Act. The Court reasoned that major life activities refer only those activities that are of central importance to daily life, noting that the terms are to be interpreted strictly to create a demanding standard for qualifying as disabled. The Court held that to be substantially limited in performing manual tasks, an individual must have an impairment that prevents or severely restricts the individual from doing activities that are of central importance to most people's daily lives. The impairment's impact must also be permanent or long term. The question of whether impairment constitutes a disability cannot be answered only by the effect of the impairment in the workplace. The Court held that although the medical conditions also caused the Plaintiff to avoid sweeping, to quit dancing, to occasionally seek help dressing and to reduce how often she plays with her children, gardens, etc., these limitations did not amount to such severe restrictions in the activities that are of central importance to most people's daily lives to establish a limit on a major life activity under the Act.

The ADA Amendments Act overruled these two Supreme Court decisions and reinstates a broad scope of protection under the ADA. The ADA Amendment Act significantly changes the current state of the law by:

• Rejecting the requirement enunciated by the Supreme Court in Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc., and its companion cases that whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity is to be determined with reference to the ameliorative affects of mitigating measures.
• Rejecting the Supreme Court's reasoning in Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc. with regard to coverage under the third prong of the definition of disability (being regarded as having an impairment) and to reinstate the reasoning of the Supreme Court in the case School Board of Nassau County v. Arline, which set forth a broad view of the third prong of the definition of handicap under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
• Rejecting the standards enunciated by the Supreme Court in Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams: that the terms "substantially" and "major" in the definition of disability "need to be interpreted strictly to create a demanding standard for qualifying as disabled," and that to be substantially limited in performing a major life activity "an individual must have an impairment that prevents or severely restricts the individual from doing activities that are of central importance to most people's daily lives."
• Conveying that it is the intent of Congress that the primary object of attention in cases under the ADA should be whether entities covered have complied with their obligations, and conveying that the question of whether an individual's impairment is a disability should not demand extensive analysis.
• Defining "major life activities," to include the operation of a major bodily function, including but not limited to functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine and reproductive functions.
• Clarifying that the third prong of the definition of disability - "being regarded as having such an impairment" - is met if the individual establishes that he or she has been subjected to an action prohibited under the Act because of an actual or perceived physical or mental impairment, whether or not the impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity.
• Construing the definition of disability in favor of broad coverage of individuals under the Act.
• Clarifying that an impairment that substantially limits one major life activity need not limit other major life activities in order to be considered a disability.
• Clarifying that an impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active.

The new ADA Amendments Act ensures that the definition of disability will be construed fairly and broadly. The Act will provide coverage for more and eliminate barriers that the Supreme Court created. Courts will now focus on whether individuals were discriminated against based on their disability, rather than the stringent requirements of proving the disability status that the Sutton and Toyota cases required. The effective date of the amendments is January 1, 2009.

Denise Y. Tataryn is a shareholder of Mansfield Tanick & Cohen, practicing in the areas of employment, disability and ERISA litigation. For more questions about the ADA Amendments Act, please contact her at 800-4016-194 or via email at dtataryn@mansfieldtanick.com.