ADA Amendments Act of 2008
The ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) of 2008 reversed two Supreme Court decisions that had dramatically narrowed the ADA's protections, restoring Congress's original broad intent. The Court had ruled in Sutton v. United Airlines (1999) and Toyota Motor Manufacturing v. Williams (2002) that mitigating measures should be considered in determining disability status, effectively excluding many people who experience discrimination from ADA protection.
The Problem: Two Supreme Court Decisions
The original ADA, enacted in 1990, was intended to protect a broad class of people with disabilities from discrimination. However, two Supreme Court decisions in the late 1990s and early 2000s dramatically narrowed who qualified for protection.
Sutton v. United Airlines (1999): The Court ruled that whether a person has a disability should be assessed in their corrected or mitigated state — meaning a person whose condition is well-controlled by medication or devices might not qualify as "disabled" under the ADA and therefore might not be protected from discrimination.
Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams (2002): The Court interpreted "substantially limits a major life activity" very narrowly, holding that a person must be limited in activities of central importance to daily life — not just work-related activities — to qualify for protection.
The practical result was perverse: many people who faced discrimination on the basis of disability — including people with cancer, diabetes, epilepsy, and other conditions — were found not to be "disabled enough" to be protected by the very law designed to protect them.
The ADAAA's Response
Passed with strong bipartisan support and signed by President George W. Bush on September 25, 2008, the ADAAA:
- Explicitly stated that Congress rejected the Sutton and Toyota interpretations and intended a broader reading of "disability"
- Provided that mitigating measures (medication, prosthetics, hearing aids, learned behavioural modifications) should not be considered when determining whether a person has a disability
- Expanded the list of major life activities to include bodily functions (immune system, cell growth, etc.)
- Clarified that an impairment that is episodic or in remission is still a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active
- Made it easier to establish coverage under the "regarded as" prong of disability definition
Significance
The ADAAA restored protections that the Court had eroded. It reaffirmed Congress's intent to provide broad civil rights protection to people with disabilities. The emphasis on episodic conditions and remission was particularly significant for people with cancer, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, mental health conditions, and other fluctuating disabilities.
The ADAAA also reflects an important principle in disability rights: legal gains can be eroded by interpretation, and sustained advocacy is required to protect them. The movement that secured the original ADA in 1990 had to return to Congress less than two decades later to defend its achievements.