The ADA Amendments Act of 2008 took effect on January 1, 2009. It changed the ADA in some ways and left it alone in others, but its primary purpose was to get rid of restrictions that the Supreme Court had placed on the ADA since its passage in 1990.

One thing that was left alone was the familiar three-part definition of disability. To be eligible for ADA protection, a person still can either: 1) have a condition that substantially limits a major life activity, 2) have a record of such a condition, or 3) be regarded as having such a condition.

What changed is that CoAdapt Action April 2010 6ngress required that the Act be applied as broadly as possible. It broadened the definitions to increase the list of conditions assumed to be covered by the ADA. It also added a list of bodily functions that, if substantially limited, are also presumed to be covered. It made clear that an impairment that comes and goes or is in remission is covered if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active.

In overturning three Supreme Court cases, the ADA Amendments Act made clear that even if the individual’s functioning is improved by taking medications or using such things as mobility devices, special optical tools, oxygen therapy, equipment and supplies, hearing aids and prosthetic limbs, these should not be considered in deciding whether a condition “substantially limits” a major life activity. However, the ADA Amendments Act still allow courts to consider the use of regular glasses and contact lenses in deciding whether someone is “substantially limited” in a major life activity.

The ADA Amendments Act also make it easier to prove that one had been “regarded as” having a disability. Now, in order to be protected, a person need only show that he or she has been subjected to an act prohibited by the ADA 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.

At the same time, the ADA Amendments Act put a number of clear limits on the scope of the ADA. These include: 1) not covering people who are only “regarded as” being disabled if they are perceived to have only a “transitory [6 months or less] or minor” impairment and, 2) not giving people the right to reasonable accommodation who meet only the “regarded as” part of the definition. Another clear limitation, with respect to employment, is that a person who is currently using illegal drugs is not covered and an employer can prohibit use, or being under the influence of, illegal drugs or alcohol on the job.

The result of the ADA Amendments Act should be that a lot more people are able to prove that they are disabled, so they can “have their day in court.” This should shift much of the focus of cases to issues like whether a person with a disability has been discriminated against and what remedies they are entitled to as a result of discrimination they have suffered.