Congress approves ADA expansion, clarification

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congress has approved legislation expanding the definition of disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act to include people who can compensate at least in part with medications, medical devices or prosthetics.
The bill, which was approved by a voice vote Wednesday in the U.S. House of Representatives and had been approved the same way in the Senate days earlier, was introduced in response to U.S. Supreme Court decisions in 1999 and 2002 that deemed such people ineligible for protection under the 1990 law. The ADA’s authors, however, disagreed.
“In the ADA, we said we wanted broad coverage for people with disabilities and those regarded as disabled,” said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., the original law’s lead House sponsor. “We never expected that people with disabilities who worked to mitigate their conditions would have their efforts held against them, judging them no longer disabled enough to suffer discrimination.”
“With this bill’s passage,” he added, “we reassert that intent and reclaim the ADA’s promise, with a definition of ‘disability’ that will be construed fairly and broadly.”
The new legislation states that the definition of disability “shall be construed in favor of broad coverage,” and that courts should not consider the effects of “mitigating measures” such as hearing aids, drugs and artificial limbs. Even if an impairment is episodic or in remission, the measure says, it remains a disability “if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active.”
The law, which White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said President Bush intends to sign, is expected to affect a slew of lawsuits that had been thrown out of court before involving workers who have cancer, diabetes and other health problems.
Several business and human resources groups, including the Society for Human Resource Management and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, had expressed support for the new legislation, which they said “strikes an appropriate balance between the needs of individuals with disabilities and those of employers.”