Congress Tells the Courts How to Interpret the ADA
For example, in the Murphy case, Murphy had severe high blood pressure, but with medication, could function normally and engage in a full range of activities. Before the ADAAA, the law did not consider him to be disabled under the ADA because the use of medication controlled the effects of his high blood pressure. Murphy was prevented from pursuing an ADA claim after UPS found him unfit for his driver position because of his high blood pressure. The ADAAA now mandates that in determining whether an individual is disabled under the ADA, the person must be evaluated as if untreated, without considering the ameliorative effects of high blood pressure medication.
As a result of this change, the ADA will protect people whose cancer is in remission, whose diabetes is controlled by medication, whose seizures are prevented by medication, and who can function at a high level with learning disabilities. Employers will need to concentrate less on the threshold issue of disability, and focus more on their duty to provide reasonable accommodations. The ADAAA makes an exception for those who wear ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses to correct vision to full acuity. These devices are not to be ignored in considering whether a person is disabled. Rather, they are to be taken into account, in all but rare cases. The purpose is to exclude from the definition of disability persons who simply need ordinary glasses to read, drive, etc.
The Scope of Regarded as Claims Has Been Both Clarified and Broadened The ADAAA further expands the ADAs definition of disability, specifically the regarded as prong of that definition, by now including persons that have been discriminated against because of an actual impairment or a perceived impairment whether or not the impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity. This is in stark contrast to the previous requirement expressed in the U.S. Supreme Courts opinion in Sutton that the perceived impairment must, like any actual impairment, substantially limit a major life activity. If a person is treated adversely (in regard to job application procedures, hiring, advancement, discharge, compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment) because of an actual perceived impairment, that is a violation of the law, irrespective of whether the impairment actually limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity. However, the ADAAA excludes from the regarded as definition of disability those impairments that are transitory and minor. Transitory is defined as impairment with an actual or expected duration of 6 months or less.
The ADAAA, however, limits the application of the ADA by clarifying that an employers duty to accommodate does not extend to those individuals who make discrimination claims under the regarded as prong of the definition of disability. Before the ADAAA, there was a split among the federal courts as to whether the ADAs reasonable accommodation requirement applied to the regarded as category of disabled individuals. The ADAAA makes clear that employers have no duty to accommodate these individuals.
Of course I agree in principle with a lawsuit, but in the harsh world of job hunting, a job hunter has little time or resources to fight the nannies. BHCS knows this and so can and will make up anything they want to quickly dismiss a suit.
