Federal courts are off to “a promising start” in issuing rulings under the ADA Amendments Act according to the National Council on Disability, an independent federal agency. NCD says that recent rulings are a substantial improvement over pre-amendments decisions in achieving the broad scope of coverage that Congress intended.
That finding is part of an NCD review of court rulings issued since the law was expanded in 2009. The agency marked the 23rd anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act’s enactment by issuing a report on its findings, “A Promising Start: Preliminary Analysis of Court Decisions Under the ADA Amendments Act.”
The amendments were enacted to shift the focus away from determining whether an individual has a disability and toward determining whether discrimination occurred, said NCD’s chair, Jeff Rosen, in a letter introducing the report.
According to Rosen, NCD undertook this review of case law to determine whether the amendments had achieved that goal, and found that, generally, it has. The agency noted, however, that many cases are still dismissed on procedural grounds before the alleged discriminatory conduct of the employer is ever addressed, and offered recommendations for changing that.
The council found that while the circuit courts have had few chances to issue rulings on the Amendments Act — because most have found that it does not apply retroactively — they still expressed receptivity toward the changes. And in cases where it has been applied, the amendments have made a significant positive difference for plaintiffs, NCD said.
“In six of the seven Circuit Court decisions in which the provisions of the ADAAA were applied, the plaintiff prevailed on the issue of establishing a disability; and in the district court decisions analyzed in cases under the ADAAA, plaintiffs prevailed on the showing of disability in more than three out of four decisions — a promising start and a substantial improvement over pre-ADAAA decisions in achieving the broad scope of ADA coverage that Congress intended,” Rosen said.
In Allen v. Southcrest Hospital (No. 11-5016, 2011 WL 6394472 (10th Cir. 2011) (unpublished)), the 10th Circuit spent a great deal of time considering whether an individual with migraines had a disability and ultimately decided that she didn’t. NCD said this approach disregarded the law’s mandate that “disability” should be interpreted broadly and not demand extensive analysis. “Whether this decision will have a regressive effect on future decisions is a matter of concern to which close attention will be paid,” NCD said.
Continue reading at Thompson’s HR Compliance Expert.