Opinion ID: 1209970
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008

Text: On September 25, 2008, two months after the parties' oral argument before this court, President George W. Bush signed into law the ADAAA, which significantly expands the scope of the term disability under the ADA. The ADAAA became effective on January 1, 2009, and Congress did not indicate that it may be applied retrospectively. Because we have reached our conclusions separate and apart from the ADAAA, we need not determine whether the amendment has retroactive effect. Nevertheless, because the ADAAA sheds light on Congress' original intent when it enacted the ADA, a brief discussion of the amendment is appropriate.
The ADAAA explicitly rejects several Supreme Court decisions that defined disability more narrowly than many of the ADA's original Congressional proponents had intended. See H.R.Rep. No. 110-730, at 5 (2008) (H. Comm. on Educ. & Labor). Beginning in January 2009, disability was to be broadly construed and coverage will apply to the maximum extent permitted by the ADA and the ADAAA. 122 Stat. at 3553. The ADAAA explains that [w]hile [in enacting the ADA] Congress expected that the definition of disability under the ADA would be interpreted consistently with how courts had applied the definition of a handicapped individual under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, that expectation has not been fulfilled. Further, the holdings of the Supreme Court in Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 119 S.Ct. 2139, 144 L.Ed.2d 450 (1999) and its companion cases have narrowed the broad scope of protection intended to be afforded by the ADA, thus eliminating protection for many individuals whom Congress intended to protect. 122 Stat. at 3553.
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.