Congress Attempting to Expand Americans With Disabilities Act Protections
Basics of the Bill
Two United States Supreme Court Case interpretations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Sutton v. United Air Lines, 527 U.S. 471 (1999), and Toyota Motor Mfg. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002), took a relatively narrow view of the ADA that Congress may not agree with. As a result a House sponsored bill, the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, was proposed and was widely approved by the House (402-17) in late June. The bill is now awaiting consideration by the Senate and has bipartisan support in both houses. It is expected to pass the Senate. President Bush has hinted at a veto, but it remains unclear what his actual response would be.
If passed in its current form, the bill would make a number of substantial changes to the ADA, including:
1) To be disabled, the ADA provides that a person must be substantially limited in a major life activity. The bill would define "substantially limited" to mean "materially restricted" and provides that one would still be considered disabled when the limiting activity is in remission.
2) Reversing Sutton v. UAL by providing that the courts would be obligated to analyze the disability question without consideration of any prosthetics, medications etc.
3) Expands the definition of "major life activity" by providing that it includes certain specific bodily functions.
4) Specifically provides that the law must interpret the definition of disability broadly when analyzing cases under the ADA.
5) Expands the definition of who is "regarded as" disabled and provides that one does not have to be regarded as having a function that substantially limits a major life activity to be protected under the Act.
For a complete copy of the bill, click here http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-3195
What Does it Mean in California
The definition of "disability" in California has historically been broader than the ADA definition. Many of the additional protections offered by this bill are already offered under California's Fair Employment and Housing Act. In large part, this bill would bring the ADA definition in line with California's FEHA definition and would probably be interpreted by the courts to be even a bit broader than the FEHA definition. Although the passage of this legislation would not have as material effect in California as it would in most other states, the following would likely occur if this bill is enacted:
1) More ADA discrimination lawsuits would be filed in California.
2) Currently, most employment disability discrimination lawsuits in California are brought under FEHA. If this bill passed, more California disability discrimination suits would be brought under the ADA.
3) The number of lawsuits for disability discrimination brought by individuals without actual disabilities but who claim to be "regarded as" disabled would increase materially.
4) California employers would have a broader duty to accommodate employees limited by physical or mental impairment.
5) It would be more difficult for California employers to obtain summary judgment of employment disability discrimination lawsuits.
We will continue to keep you updated on the status of this bill.