With the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, many are left wondering how the new legislation actually changes the 1990 law against discrimination. Regardless, everyone has a different opinion about the amendments; some favor the new Act and regulations while others do not. Most disability rights advocates agree however, that the amendments restore the original intent of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which some have abandoned over the years.

Under the new amendments, the courts cannot interpret the meaning of disability narrowly as done in some previous cases. With original ADA intent restored, more disabled individuals are protected from disability discrimination than previously covered by the ADA. Some of these disabilities include forms of epilepsy and other conditions controlled by medication, minor intellectual disabilities, vision impairments that require more than contact lenses and eye glasses, hepatitis (with sufficient liver function), diabetes, hypertension, long term effects of brain damage, and individuals in cancer remission. For years, activists have fought for the ADA to be returned to its original intent and are overjoyed with passage of the ADA amendments.Other protections restored and clarified by the amendments concern impairments that are substantially limiting but in remission or episodic, those who have an impairment that is not restrictive of major life activities, individuals who experience limitations in a major bodily function, and finally, the courts are prohibited from considering mitigating measures such as medications that reduce the impact of the disabling condition. With regard to those who experience disabling of a major bodily function, this provision will allow a significant amount of people to establish disability under the ADA. For example, individuals with diabetes would be considered disabled because the condition limits endocrine functioning. This person is protected under the original ADA, but some courts ruled otherwise, so the amendments help to strengthen this protection.

While many court cases have influenced the ADA, one has had significant influence. Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams of 2002 ordered a strictly narrow interpretation of the ADA. A person who acquired carpel tunnel syndrome due to repetitive motion on the job was first accommodated through reassignment to a different job but was later demoted. The Supreme Court held that to be disabled, an individual must have an impairment that severely restricts the individual from doing activities that are of central importance to most people’s daily lives, such as brushing their teeth which the individual could do despite the carpel tunnel syndrome. Many were angered with this finding and worked to alter this standard. With passage of the ADA amendments, it was overruled and is no longer applicable.

Of course, any legislation that expands upon the rights of those with disabilities is welcome, making the ADA amendments another step in the right direction. How have the amendments effected you since passage in January?

For more information visit:

www.ada.gov
www.eeoc.gov