One purpose of the ADAAA was to overturn two significant decisions by the United States Supreme Court under the ADA .  The ADAAA rejects the standards enunciated by the Supreme Court in Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002) where the terms “substantially limits” and “major life activities” as used in the ADA resulted in a narrow interpretation of the types of impairments that would be protected under the ADA.  The ADAAA includes new sections defining “major life activities,” “regarded as having such an impairment” and rules of construction regarding the definition of “disability.”  For example, the ADAAA specifically directs that the definition of a disability should be construed in favor of “broad coverage of individuals under the Act.”  Furthermore, an impairment that is “episodic” or “in remission” is still a disability if it would “substantially limit a major life activity when active.”

The ADAAA also rejects the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999), which held that mitigating measures could be considered in determining whether an impairment in fact substantially limits a major life activity.  The ADAAA specifically provides that the foregoing determination must be made “without regard to the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures,” including medication, medical supplies, equipment, appliances, prosthetics, hearing aids, mobility devices, and other aids or assistive devices, as well as learned behavior or adaptive neurological modifications.  However, the ameliorative effects of the mitigating measures of ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses can be considered in determining whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity to the extent they are intended to fully correct visual acuity or eliminate refractive error.  The ADAAA also provides that qualification standards and tests related to uncorrected vision can only be used if it is shown to be job-related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity.

Prior to the ADAAA, many disability claims brought under the ADA were subject to summary disposition in favor of the employer given the narrow interpretation applied to the ADA by the courts.  However, the ADAAA is likely to serve its purpose of broadening the scope of the ADA ’s coverage, thereby increasing the likelihood that such claims will proceed to trial.

If you have any questions or need additional information regarding the ADAAA, including assistance with revising any relevant policies or supervisor training on the issue, please contact Melanie Webber, Jennifer Welfley or Maribeth Wuertz in the firm’s Human Resource Practice Group at (440) 838-8800.