Opinion ID: 3064429
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: ADAAA Alters Supreme Court’s Standards for

Text: “Disability” 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 8 We recognized in 2003 that eating qualifies as such a major life activity. Fraser, 342 F.3d at 1040. 1832 ROHR v. SALT RIVER PROJECT 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. [8] 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. 9 The only excepted mitigating measures are ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses, which must be considered in determining whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity. 10 The American Diabetes Association has heralded the ADAAA as “mak[ing] it clear that Congress intends for people with conditions such as diabetes to be covered by the law and protected from discrimination on the basis of their diabetes.” American Diabetes Association, Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act and Diabetes, www.diabetes.org/ advocacy-and-legalresources/discrimination/employment/americans-withdisabilities-act-amendments-act-and-diabetes.jsp#5. ROHR v. SALT RIVER PROJECT 1833 [9] While we decide this case under the ADA, and not the ADAAA, the original congressional intent as expressed in the amendment bolsters our conclusions.