UPDATE: On Wednesday, June 18th, the House Judiciary Committee and the House Education and Labor Committee passed H.R. 3195 with overwhelmingly bipartisan support.  This landmark bill has also gained momentum due to an unprecedented alliance of civil rights, disablilty and employer advocates and will likely come to the House floor before the July 4th recess.

In 1990, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was signed into law with strong bi-partisan support. This act was to be the “emancipation proclamation” for people with disabilities preventing unfair treatment toward people with current, past and perceived disabilities. However, 17 years after the passage of this historic civil rights legislation, the courts have significantly weakened the original provisions of the ADA by narrowing the definition of “disability.”

Issue at Hand

The ADA was intended to be a comprehensive protective law against discrimination on the basis of disability. The bill provided people with disabilities the right to equal opportunity in employment and protection from discrimination in the workplace. 

But court decisions have narrowed the definition of “disability,” leaving workers vulnerable to discrimination based on a wide range of conditions that are no longer protected regardless of Congress’ original intent to do so.

As one victim of this injustice lamented: “Well, you can’t have it both ways – am I disabled or not? If I am, then the ADA should have been there to protect me. If I’m not, then I should be working...” To read more testimony, visit the ADA Watch’s Web site.

This has created a Catch-22. Employers may discriminate against a person because s/he is wrongly considered “too disabled” to do a job - but that employee may be deemed not “disabled enough” to be protected by the ADA.

The ADA Amendments Act of 2008
(S. 1881/H.R. 3195) will re-establish coverage of individuals whom Congress originally intended to protect from discrimination by amending the definition of the term "disability." This restoration would help ensure that the courts focus on the alleged employer discrimination, rather than on whether an individual can meet the rigorous standards to qualify as "disabled."