Yesterday, President Bush signed into law the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, which expands the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”). The purpose of the new law is to overturn two decisions of the United States Supreme Court -- Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc. and Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams -- in order to broaden the scope of who is disabled under the ADA.
In Sutton, the Supreme Court held that the determination of whether an individual has a disability should take into account mitigating measures or corrective devices. In that case, the Court concluded that twin sisters with severe myopia were not "disabled" because their myopia was corrected by contact lenses. Thus, after Sutton, federal courts have found that impairments that can be corrected through medication, prosthetics, hearing aids or other devices are not disabilities under the ADA.
The ADA Amendments Act reverses this analysis. The new law provides that mitigating measures and corrective devices should not be considered when determining whether or not an individual is disabled pursuant to the ADA.
For Massachusetts employers, this change brings the ADA in line with state law. In 2001, the Supreme Judicial Court held in Dahill v. Boston Police Department that mitigating measures and corrective devices should not be considered when determining whether an individual is disabled under the state’s anti-discrimination statute, Chapter 151B.
The ADA Amendments Act also alters the Supreme Court’s decision in Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams. In that case, the Court held that an employee’s inability to perform tasks specific to a particular occupation does not mean that the individual is "substantially limit[ed in] one or more major life activities," the touchstone of a disability under the ADA. The Court explained that the focus should be on the employee’s ability to perform tasks that are central to daily life, not specific tasks associated with a particular job.
In response to Toyota, the new law provides that a “disability” under the ADA should be construed in favor of “broad coverage.” It explains that Toyota created an “inappropriately high level of limitation” necessary to obtain coverage under the ADA. While the law does not specifically address whether the inability to perform tasks unique to a particular occupation is sufficient, Congress intended to lower the bar as to what constitute a substantial limitation in a major life activity. The amendment further clarifies that an impairment need only limit “one major life activity,” and that that an impairment that is “episodic” or in “remission” is an ADA protected disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active.
These changes to the ADA mean that more employees will be subject to its coverage, and thus employers will be required to grant reasonable accommodations to a larger percentage of the workforce. The challenge is that the breadth of the changes is unclear. Employers likely will err on the side of caution that an employee's impairment is covered under the ADA in order to avoid costly litigation.
The ADA Amendments Act of 2008 takes effect on January 1, 2009.