Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
[from Sect. 4]
cases,
Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc.
U.S.
471 (1999) and
Toyota Motor Manufac-
turing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams
, 534
U.S. 184 (2002), the courts narrowed the
broad protection Congress had intended.
Congress then clarified the law, giving
less room for interpretation by the courts
of what was meant by “disability.”
In
Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc
. U.S.
471 (1999) and accompanying cases, the
U.S. Supreme Court held that a business
or government agency could consider
devices and medication that might lessen
the impact of a person's health condition
before deciding whether that person has
a disability. In the second case,
Toyota v.
Williams
(2002), the U.S. Supreme Court
found that to have a disability, a person
had to show that everyday tasks “of central
importance to most people's daily lives”
were affected permanently, and not only
job-specific tasks. In essence, the Supreme
Court's ruling required individuals to
have a higher level of disability than Con-
gress intended in order to be covered by
the ADA. In its response legislation, the
2008 ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA),
Congress mentioned these two cases spe-
cifically saying that the Supreme Court
and the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission had limited protection of the
law more than Congress had intended.
Thus, the ADAAA specifically states that
the decision on whether a person has a
disability must be based on that person's
health condition(s) without considering
any devices or medications she/he might
use and included a definition for the term
disability
[see the quote Sect. 3(2)(A)
above], which removed the opportunity
for the courts' interpretation.
C. An impairment that substantially
limits one major life activity need
not limit other major life activi-
ties in order to be considered a
disability.
D. An impairment that is episodic or in
remission is a disability if it would
substantially limit a major life activ-
ity when active.
E. The determination of whether an
impairment substantially limits a
major life activity shall be made
without regard to the ameliorative
effects of mitigating measures such
as
I. medication, medical supplies,
equipment, or appliances, low-
vision devices (which do not
include ordinary eyeglasses
or contact lenses), prosthetics
including limbs and devices,
hearing aids and cochlear
implants or other implant-
able hearing devices, mobil-
ity devices, or oxygen therapy
equipment and supplies;
II. use of assistive technology;
III. reasonable accommodations or
auxiliary aids or services; or
IV.
learned behavioral or adaptive
neurological modifications.
In the amended ADA legislation of
2008, Congressional explanations for the
amendments indicate that when the ADA
was passed in 1990 Congress expected
that courts would interpret “disability” as
they had previously interpreted “handi-
capped individual” under the Rehabilita-
tion Act of 1973. However, that definition
was not applied and in at least two court
