Roundup

The Americans with Disabilities Act was signed
19 years ago this July. In our annual roundup, we
look for signs of progress over the past year.
by Bill Norman
‘Disability’ gets a makeover
in new ADA Amendment
Act

On Jan. 1, the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008 went into effect. The Act promises improvements in employment-related ADA protections, bringing the landmark disability civil rights legislation back into line with the original intentions of its creators 19 years ago.

As of this writing, regulations for the amendments haven’t been fully spelled out, and court interpretations are yet to be written. But several important observations can be made.

Disability redefined

Up until Jan. 1, the courts (including the U.S. Supreme Court) interpreted the term “disability” so narrowly that many people,

including those with significant disabilities, were denied ADA employment protections. One of the most important effects of the Amendments Act is that the focus now will be on whether job discrimination against a person occurred — not on the question of whether that person is disabled.

The basic definition of “disability” hasn’t changed, but the meanings of some of the words in the ADA’s definition have, such as in the part that defines disability as a condition that “substantially limits one or more major life activities of an individual.”

Under the Amendment Act, the meaning of “substantially limits” has been relaxed so more people meet the standard, and the meaning of “major life activities” has been expanded.

Previously, “major life activities” included such things as speaking, reading, working, caring for oneself, standing and thinking. The courts often disallowed medical conditions (heart disease, sleep

disorders, diabetes) that affected primarily internal functions.

Now “major life activities” are considered to include major bodily functions such as bowel and bladder functions, and the neurological, respiratory and circulatory systems.

This change in definition impacts cases such as that of Larry Rohr, an employee of Salt River Project (SRP, a large Arizona power and water utility company). Rohr sued SRP in 2004, contending he had been pushed out of his job of 23 years when he asked for job assignment exemptions to accommodate treatment of his type 2 diabetes. In 2006, a lower court dismissed his claim, regarding his diabetes as a disease rather than a disability.

But in February a federal court sided with Rohr — diabetes is a disability.

Wrote the judges, “Diabetes is a physical impairment because it affects the digestive …. systems, and eating is a major life