Opinion ID: 1209970
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: ADAAA Alters Supreme Court's Standards for Disability

Text: The ADAAA clarifies Congress's intent with respect to the term disability in three major ways that could affect whether ADA protections are extended to persons with diabetes. First, the law makes clear that eating is a major life activity under the Act. [8] 122 Stat. at 3555. Second, the ADAAA states that the standard articulated in Toyota that substantially limits means prevents or severely restricts has created an inappropriately high level of limitation necessary to obtain coverage under the ADA. 122 Stat. at 3554. In this respect, Congress has decided that the current EEOC regulations, which define the term substantially limits as significantly restricted, require a greater degree of limitation than the 1990 Congress had intended, and has instructed the EEOC to revise its definition. Id. Third, and perhaps most significantly, the ADAAA rejects the requirement enunciated in Sutton that whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity is to be determined with reference to mitigating measures. Id. The ADAAA makes explicit that the substantially limits inquiry shall be made without regard to the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures such as ... medication, medical supplies, equipment, or appliances ...; use of assistive technology; reasonable accommodations or auxiliary aids or services; or learned behavioral or adaptive neurological modifications. [9] Id. at 3556. Impairments are to be evaluated in their unmitigated state, so that, for example, diabetes will be assessed in terms of its limitations on major life activities when the diabetic does not take insulin injections or medicine and does not require behavioral adaptations such as a strict diet. [10] See H.R.Rep. No. 110-730, at 8. While we decide this case under the ADA, and not the ADAAA, the original congressional intent as expressed in the amendment bolsters our conclusions.