Americans With Disabilities Act Amendments of 2008
The Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") Amendments Act ("Act") of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-325, 122 Stat. 3553, took effect January 1, 2009. Here are some of the changes under this new law:
1. An otherwise substantially limiting impairment which is in remission or episodic may still be covered by the Act;
2. Any person whose impairment has less than a substantial limitation on a major life activity, but who is nonetheless discriminated against by an employer will have redress under the law for all acts of discrimination other than the failure to receive a reasonable accomodation;
3. The courts are instructed to give a broad interpretation to the definition of disability;
4. The courts are prohibited from considering the use of mitigating measures in determining whether an individual has a disability--except contact lenses and eye glasses;
5. An employee who can demonstrate that an impairment substantially limits a major bodily function will now be considered disabled; and
6. In a claim where an employer determines an employee to be disabled, the focus is now on the employers treatment of a person with a disability instead of requiring proof about the perception of the employer.
The new law broadens what is considered a disability to include, epilepsy, cancer, brain damage, hypertension, mental retardation, diabetes, vision impairment, except for contacts and eyes glasses, and depatitis.
Here are two cases which are overruled by the ADA Amendments Act.
Albertsons Inc. v. Kirkingburg. This 1999 case involved a truck driver who had amblyopia a condition which is uncorrectable affecting his vision in one eyes. Basicallly, he could only see well out of one eye. His employer fired him and he sued. The Ninth Circuit held that he had a disability under the ADA, however the United States Supreme Court overruled.
Sutton v. United Airlines Inc. This 1999 case involved two sisters who had severe myopic which affected their vision and would not allow them to pass the airlines eyesight test. The two sisters did have 20/20 vision with corrective lenses so the United States Supreme Court held they were not disabled.
