[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 3195, ADA RESTORATION ACT OF 2007
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
EDUCATION AND LABOR
U.S. House of Representatives
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, JANUARY 29, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-76
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Education and Labor
Available on the Internet:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/education/index.html
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
40-315 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR
GEORGE MILLER, California, Chairman
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan, Vice Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon,
Chairman California,
Donald M. Payne, New Jersey Ranking Minority Member
Robert E. Andrews, New Jersey Thomas E. Petri, Wisconsin
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Virginia Peter Hoekstra, Michigan
Lynn C. Woolsey, California Michael N. Castle, Delaware
Ruben Hinojosa, Texas Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Carolyn McCarthy, New York Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan
John F. Tierney, Massachusetts Judy Biggert, Illinois
Dennis J. Kucinich, Ohio Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania
David Wu, Oregon Ric Keller, Florida
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Joe Wilson, South Carolina
Susan A. Davis, California John Kline, Minnesota
Danny K. Davis, Illinois Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Kenny Marchant, Texas
Timothy H. Bishop, New York Tom Price, Georgia
Linda T. Sanchez, California Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Charles W. Boustany, Jr.,
Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Louisiana
David Loebsack, Iowa Virginia Foxx, North Carolina
Mazie Hirono, Hawaii John R. ``Randy'' Kuhl, Jr., New
Jason Altmire, Pennsylvania York
John A. Yarmuth, Kentucky Rob Bishop, Utah
Phil Hare, Illinois David Davis, Tennessee
Yvette D. Clarke, New York Timothy Walberg, Michigan
Joe Courtney, Connecticut Dean Heller, Nevada
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire
Mark Zuckerman, Staff Director
Vic Klatt, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on January 29, 2008................................. 1
Statement of Members:
Andrews, Hon. Robert E., a Representative in Congress from
the State of New Jersey.................................... 1
Submissions for the record:
Statement of the American Civil Liberties Union...... 79
Statement of the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law 80
Statement of the United Jewish Communities........... 81
Statement of the Disability Policy Collaboration..... 83
Statement of the Epilepsy Foundation................. 84
Statement of the National Council on Disability...... 86
Statement of the National Council on Independent
Living............................................. 95
Courtney, Hon. Joe, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Connecticut:
Prepared statement of.................................... 74
Statement of Dr. Sally Shaywitz.......................... 75
Fortuno, Hon. Luis G., a Representative in Congress from the
Territory of Puerto Rico, prepared statement of............ 78
Hoyer, Hon. Steny H., Majority Leader, U.S. House of
Representatives............................................ 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
McKeon, Hon. Howard P. ``Buck,'' Senior Republican Member,
Committee on Education and Labor........................... 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Submissions for the record:
Statement of organizatons in opposition to the bill.. 97
Statement of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce............ 99
Statement of the U.S. Department of Justice.......... 112
Statement of the HR Policy Association............... 118
Statement of the National Federation of Independent
Business........................................... 140
Woolsey, Hon. Lynn C., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 79
Statement of Witnesses:
Burgdorf, Robert L., Jr., professor of law, University of the
District of Columbia....................................... 28
Prepared statement of.................................... 30
Fram, David K., Esq., director, ADA & EEO services, National
Employment Law Institute................................... 21
Prepared statement of.................................... 23
Imparato, Andrew J., president and chief executive officer,
American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD).... 10
Prepared statement of.................................... 12
McClure, Carey L., electrician............................... 17
Prepared statement of.................................... 19
H.R. 3195, ADA RESTORATION ACT OF 2007
----------
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Education and Labor
Washington, DC
----------
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:01 a.m., in room
2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. George Miller
[chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Kildee, Payne, Andrews, Woolsey,
Hinojosa, McCarthy, Kucinich, Holt, Bishop of New York,
Sarbanes, Loebsack, Hirono, Yarmuth, Hare, Courtney, McKeon,
Petri, Castle, Ehlers, Platts, Wilson, Kline, Kuhl, Davis of
Tennessee, and Walberg.
Staff present: Aaron Albright, Press Secretary; Tylease
Alli, Hearing Clerk; Jordan Barab, Health/Safety Professional;
Chris Brown, Labor Policy Advisor; Jody Calemine, Labor Policy
Deputy Director; Carlos Fenwick, Policy Advisor for
Subcommittee on Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions; Michael
Gaffin, Staff Assistant, Labor; Brian Kennedy, General Counsel;
Thomas Kiley, Communications Director; Sharon Lewis, Senior
Disability Policy Advisor; Stephanie Moore, General Counsel;
Alex Nock, Deputy Staff Director; Joe Novotny, Chief Clerk;
Michele Varnhagen, Labor Policy Director; Mark Zuckerman, Staff
Director; Robert Borden, General Counsel; Cameron Coursen,
Assistant Communications Director; Ed Gilroy, Director of
Workforce Policy; Rob Gregg, Legislative Assistant; Victor
Klatt, Staff Director; Alexa Marrero, Communications Director;
Jim Paretti, Workforce Policy Counsel; Molly McLaughlin Salmi,
Deputy Director of Workforce Policy; Ken Serafin, Professional
Staff Member; Linda Stevens, Chief Clerk/Assistant to the
General Counsel.
Mr. Andrews [presiding]. Good morning. The committee will
come to order. We appreciate your attendance.
This morning, the chairman of our full committee, Mr.
Miller, is occupied in a markup in the Resources Committee. He
has asked me to begin the hearing on his behalf, which I am
privileged to do.
Nearly two decades ago, President George Herbert Walker
Bush, working with a Democratic majority in the Senate and a
Democratic majority in the House, ably managed and led by the
gentleman who is now our majority leader, who was then
Congressman Hoyer, enacted a landmark piece of civil rights
legislation called the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The act has always had great promise. It came from a great
consensus to do the right thing by Americans to help them
achieve their highest potential, irrespective of their
abilities or disabilities. It was a law that has enjoyed broad
support and done much good. I would say that nearly 2 decades
ago when President Bush signed that bill and leaders like Mr.
Hoyer made possible, they certainly would not have thought that
we would be sitting here in a situation where muscular
dystrophy is not a disability, at least according to some of
the federal courts of the land; a situation where carpal tunnel
syndrome is not a disability according to the United States
Supreme Court; where we would be in a situation where a severe
vision impairment is not a disability according to the United
States Supreme Court.
Suffice it to say that what I believe are tortured judicial
interpretations of the definition of a ``disability'' have put
us in the position where the Americans whom we sought to
protect under that law are not enjoying the full and robust
protections of the law. The Americans with Disabilities Act
essentially has three concepts. The first is that no American
should be deprived of the right to pursue his or her best
objectives and best aspirations because of any disability, and
it defines ``disability.''
Second, it says that there cannot be discrimination or
mistreatment based upon disability. And third, it sets up a
process where, in the case of our jurisdiction, employers and
employees can determine what reasonable accommodations can and
should be made so that a person with a disability can reach his
or her highest potential. It is my judgment, based upon history
of the last nearly 20 years, that the judicial interpretations
of the meaning of ``disability'' has severely undercut the
effectiveness of this act and severely excluded a lot of worthy
Americans from the act's protection.
As he did nearly two decades ago, Mr. Hoyer has responded
to this concern. He has introduced legislation which would
correct these judicial misinterpretations and we are privileged
that he is with us this morning to discuss his legislation,
discuss the underlying problem, and for this committee to begin
the process of debating, on a bipartisan basis, what the best
solution to the problem is.
The way we will proceed this morning is that my friend the
ranking member of the full committee, Mr. McKeon, will have an
opening statement. Other members are invited to submit opening
statements for the record. We will then turn to Mr. Hoyer, who
will give us his testimony. Members will have a chance to ask
him questions, although I will suggest to members that it has
been our practice in the committee to recognize the busy
schedules of our member witnesses, and then try to get our lay
witnesses up as quickly as we can to proceed with the rest of
the hearing. But obviously if members have questions for Mr.
Hoyer, they are welcome to ask them.
So with that in mind, at this time I would turn to my
friend, the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. McKeon.
Mr. McKeon. Thank you, Chairman Andrews, and good morning,
Mr. Hoyer. With that introduction, I am sure you will be very
brief and hurry up out of here.
Mr. Andrews. That is not what I meant.
Mr. McKeon. I know that is not what you meant. [Laughter.]
We are here today to examine H.R. 3195, the ADA Restoration
Act of 2007. The Americans with Disabilities Act was enacted in
1990 with broad bipartisan support. Among its purposes was to
protect individuals with disabilities from discrimination in
the workplace. By many measures, the law has been a success. It
has increased awareness of the needs of individuals with
disabilities and has fostered recognition that these
individuals can succeed and thrive if given the opportunity.
I believe the employer community has taken the ADA to heart
with businesses adopting policies specifically aimed at
providing meaningful opportunities to individuals with
disabilities. Although the ADA has been successful, supporters
of the ADA Restoration Act believe the law needs to be
expanded. They argue that it has been unduly narrowed, leaving
some individuals without protections. I look forward to
examining these concerns more fully today.
At the same time, although there is widespread support for
the principles of the ADA, concerns have been raised about the
unintended consequences that could result from an expansion of
the law. As this committee well knows, even the best of
legislative intentions often produce harmful unintended
consequences. Sometimes measures such as this may even harm the
very individuals they seek to help.
For instance, it has been argued that the ADA Restoration
Act would significantly and dramatically expand the number of
individuals receiving coverage. This may seem like a well-
intended goal. Surely we all agree that every individual with a
disability should be given adequate accommodations and
protections.
However, if the protections are dispersed to virtually
every individual in the workplace, as some fear this bill would
do, protections for those with the most substantial and
limiting disabilities could be diluted. Resources could be
stretched too thin, leaving those who need the help the most
without the accommodations they deserve.
I expect to hear discussion today about a series of
judicial decisions and how they have impacted the law. Some
believe these decisions have clarified and underscored the
original congressional intent. Others believe they have
appropriately narrowed the application of the ADA. I look
forward to a vigorous debate on these questions.
However, we must proceed cautiously before enacting
legislation that seeks to overrule judicial findings. Certainly
it is the prerogative of Congress to enact laws and ensure
those laws are implemented as Congress intended. Yet as we have
seen in this committee on one bill after the next, legislative
fixes are rarely as clear-cut or narrowly drawn as we would
hope. All too often in trying to correct one problem, we create
several others.
Such was the case, for instance, with the Ledbetter fair
pay bill that did not overrule a single decision, as its
supporters intended, but rather fundamentally altered decades
of anti-discrimination policy and precedent. I hope and expect
that will not be the case with the bill before us, the ADA
Restoration Act. Although a number of concerns with the
legislation have already been identified, I am hopeful that as
the committee moves forward we can correct these flaws so that
the ADA Restoration Act enjoys the same strong support as its
predecessor nearly 18 years ago.
We have with us today an esteemed group of witnesses,
including the sponsor of the legislation, the House majority
leader. I want to thank each of the witnesses for joining us as
we give careful consideration to this bill. I look forward to a
thoughtful, open-minded debate that looks not only at the
bill's intended consequences, but also those that may not be
intended. By ensuring the legislation is crafted narrowly and
precisely, we can avoid undue burdens and litigation traps that
will harm the very individuals we are seeking to protect.
Thank you, Chairman Andrews, and I yield back the balance
of my time.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon, Senior Republican
Member, Committee on Education and Labor
Thank you Chairman Miller, and good morning. We are here today to
examine H.R. 3195, the ADA Restoration Act of 2007.
The Americans with Disabilities Act was enacted in 1990 with broad
bipartisan support. Among its purposes was to protect individuals with
disabilities from discrimination in the workplace.
By many measures, the law has been a success. It has increased
awareness of the needs of individuals with disabilities, and has
fostered recognition that these individuals can succeed and thrive if
given the opportunity.
I believe the employer community has taken the ADA to heart, with
businesses adopting policies specifically aimed at providing meaningful
opportunities to individuals with disabilities.
Although the ADA has been successful, supporters of the ADA
Restoration Act believe the law needs to be expanded. They argue that
it has been unduly narrowed, leaving some individuals without
protections. I look forward to examining these concerns more fully
today.
At the same time, although there is widespread support for the
principles of the ADA concerns have been raised about the unintended
consequences that would result from an expansion of the law.
As this committee well knows, even the best of legislative
intentions often produce harmful unintended consequences. Sometimes
measures such as this may even harm the very individuals they seek to
help.
For instance, it has been argued that the ADA Restoration Act would
significantly and dramatically expand the number of individuals
receiving coverage. This may seem like a well-intended goal--surely, we
all agree that every individual with a disability should be given
adequate accommodations and protections. However, if the protections
are dispersed to virtually every individual in the workplace--as some
fear this bill would do--protections for those with the most
substantial and limiting disabilities could be diluted. Resources could
be stretched too thin, leaving those who need help the most without the
accommodations they deserve.
I expect to hear discussion today about how a series of judicial
decisions have impacted the law. Some believe these decisions have
clarified and underscored the original congressional intent. Others
believe they have inappropriately narrowed the application of the ADA.
I look forward to a vigorous debate on these questions.
However, we must proceed cautiously before enacting legislation
that seeks to overrule judicial findings. Certainly it is the
prerogative of Congress to enact laws and ensure those laws are
implemented as Congress intended. Yet as we have seen in this
committee, on one bill after the next, legislative ``fixes'' are rarely
as clear cut or narrowly drawn as we would hope. All too often, in
trying to correct one problem, we create several others. Such was the
case, for instance, with the Ledbetter Fair Pay bill that did not
overrule a single decision as its supporters intended, but rather
fundamentally altered decades of antidiscrimination policy and
precedent.
I hope and expect that will not be the case with the bill before
us, the ADA Restoration Act. Although a number of concerns with the
legislation have already been identified, I am hopeful that as the
committee moves forward we can correct these flaws so that the ADA
Restoration Act enjoys the same strong support as its predecessor
nearly 18 years ago.
We have with us today an esteemed group of witnesses including the
sponsor of the legislation, the House Majority Leader. I want to thank
each of the witnesses for joining us as we give careful consideration
to this bill.
I look forward to a thoughtful, open-minded debate that looks not
only at the bill's intended consequences, but also those that may not
be intended. By ensuring the legislation is crafted narrowly and
precisely, we can avoid undue burdens and litigation traps that will
harm the very individuals we are seeking to protect. Thank you Chairman
Miller, I yield back the balance of my time.
______
Mr. Andrews. Thank you, Mr. McKeon.
Steny Hoyer is the majority leader of the House of
Representatives. He represents Maryland's fifth congressional
district. Prior to being elected majority leader, Congressman
Hoyer served 2 terms as the Democratic whip. Congressman
Hoyer's service as majority leader makes him the highest
ranking member of Congress from Maryland in the history of
Maryland.
Now serving his 14th term in Congress, which included his
stellar service in helping to make the Americans with
Disabilities Act a reality, he became the longest serving
member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Maryland in
Maryland's history on June 4, 2007.
He is broadly respected on both sides of the aisle. He is a
consummate legislator and a dear friend and colleague. We
welcome him to the committee.
STATEMENT OF HON. STENY H. HOYER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND, MAJORITY LEADER
Mr. Hoyer. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for that
generous introduction.
Mr. McKeon, thank you for your very thoughtful statement.
As someone who worked with one of your predecessors, Steve
Bartlett, for literally scores of hours, over 100 hours trying
to do what you say is our objective jointly, and that is a
piece of legislation which is reasonable and can be applied and
used and interpreted as the Congress intends. That is the
purpose of this legislation.
I am pleased to be joined in the room, if not at the table,
with Cheryl Sensenbrenner. My cosponsor of this legislation is
Jim Sensenbrenner, the ranking member of the Judiciary
Committee. Mr. Sensenbrenner and I have worked long together on
issues regarding disabilities, and I thank his wife, Mrs.
Sensenbrenner, who has been a leader in her own right on this
issue, who is as I say, with us today.
One other person I would like to mention, the real hero of
the Americans with Disabilities Act, were those with
disabilities all over this country who came to Congress and
told us of the discrimination to which they were subjected. A
galvanizing leader in that effort was Justin Dart. Many of you
knew Justin Dart. His widow, Yoshiko, is in the room with us
and she has, as she does so often have, Justin's hat with her.
His admonition to us was to keep the faith and keep the focus
on making sure that the opportunities promised by the Americans
with Disabilities Act became the reality. Yoshiko, thank you
for the efforts that you have made.
I want to thank you for holding this hearing on the ADA
Restoration Act. It was introduced last July 26 and it already
has 244 cosponsors, a broadly bipartisan cosponsorship. Let me
assure you of one thing at the outset of my testimony. The
purpose of this legislation we believe is straightforward and
unambiguous. The bill does not seek to expand the rights
guaranteed in the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act.
Instead, it seeks to clarify the law, restoring the scope of
protection available under the ADA.
It responds to court decisions that have sharply restricted
the class of people who can invoke protection under the law.
And it reinstates the original congressional intent when we
passed the ADA, and which I might say was a collaborative
effort between President Bush, in the late 1980s and 1990, and
the Congress in a very bipartisan way. When the first President
Bush signed the ADA on July 26, 1990, he hailed it as, ``the
world's first comprehensive declaration of equality for people
with disabilities.'' He was absolutely correct, and it has been
viewed as such around the world.
This landmark civil rights law prohibited discrimination
against Americans with disabilities in the workplace, public
accommodations, and other settings. We knew that it would not
topple centuries of prejudice overnight, but we believed that
it could change attitudes and unleash the talent of millions of
Americans with disabilities.
And we were right, as Mr. McKeon has indicated and Mr.
Andrews also. Since its enactment, thousands of Americans with
disabilities have entered the workplace, realizing self-
sufficiency for the first time in their lives. However, despite
our progress, the courts, including the United States Supreme
Court, have narrowly interpreted the ADA, limiting its scope
and undermining, I suggest to you, congressional intent.
When we wrote the ADA, we intentionally used a definition
of ``disability'' that was broad, borrowing from an existing
definition of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, our assumption
being that that law, in effect for 17 years prior to the
signing of this bill, had been interpreted many times, and
therefore we were trying to eliminate controversy, rather than
create it. We did this because the courts have generously
interpreted this definition in the Rehabilitation Act, and we
thought using established language would help us avoid a
potentially divisive political debate over the definition of
``disabled.''
Therefore, we could not have fathomed or anticipated that
people with diabetes, epilepsy, heart conditions, cancer, and
mental illness would have their ADA claims rejected and kicked
out of court because, with medication, they would be considered
too functional to meet the definition of ``disabled.''
In other words, our premise now is that if I discriminate
against you because you have epilepsy, but you can perform a
major life function because the medication that you are taking
mitigates the effects of your epilepsy and prevents seizures,
the fact that I have discriminated against you and said you
can't have the job because you have epilepsy will not be
covered under this act. No one on this panel, from right to
left, Republican or Democrat, could have conceived that such a
conclusion would have been reached.
The Supreme Court decision in Sutton, Kirkingburg, and
Murphy cases in 1999 and the Toyota Manufacturing case in 2002
are, simply put, misinterpretations of the law. I wrote an op/
ed piece in The Washington Post shortly after one of those
decisions stating that. In Toyota Manufacturing, for example,
Justice O'Connor, writing for the court, said the terms,
``substantially limited,'' and ``major life activities'' need
to be, and in her words ``strictly interpreted to create a
demanding standard for qualifying as disabled.''
That is a conclusion that I think none of us would have
reached who voted for the act, nor would President Bush when he
signed the act. The court went on to say, `` `substantially
limited' means to prevent or severely restrict.'' This was not
our intent when Congress passed the ADA. Again, if I
discriminate against you because you have epilepsy, the fact
that your epilepsy does not adversely affect your ability to do
the job for which you apply seems to be irrelevant. It is the
discrimination that is relevant.
We did not anticipate that contrary to our explicit
instructions in the legislation, the court would eliminate from
the act's coverage individuals who have mitigated the effects
of their impairment with medication or assistive devices, as in
Sutton, Murphy and Kirkingburg. Again, this is not, I suggest
to you, what the Congress intended. We intended a broad
application of the law. Simply put, the point of the ADA is not
the disability. It is the discrimination. It is the prevention
of wrongful and unlawful discrimination.
Let me be clear--only people who can prove that they have
been discriminated against on the basis of real or perceived
disability have potentially valid claims under the ADA. Such
people must also prove that they are qualified to do the job
with or without a reasonable accommodation. Mr. Bartlett and I
and members of Congress and outside advocacy groups, business
and consumers, prospective employees, all spent a lot of time
on this so the act would be a reasonable act.
H.R. 3195, introduced by myself and Congressman
Sensenbrenner, and now 242 others, the former chairman of the
Judiciary Committee, Mr. Sensenbrenner--we designed it to
restore the broad reach of ADA that we believed was plain in
1990. I think President Bush's statement upon signing reflects
that belief. Among other things, the bill will amend the
definition of ``disability'' so that people who Congress
originally intended to protect from discrimination are in fact
covered under the ADA.
Secondly, it will prevent courts from considering
mitigating measures. The issue was not whether measures could
mitigate your disability. It was the discrimination based upon
your disability, such as eyeglasses or medication, when
determining whether a person qualifies for protection under the
law.
Thirdly, it will modify findings in the ADA that have been
used by the courts to support a narrow reading of
``disability.'' Almost every civil rights statute, indeed every
civil rights statute we have passed, was intended to be and was
instructed to be broadly interpreted to affect the objective of
eliminating arbitrary and capricious discrimination.
Specifically, this bill strikes the finding pertaining to ``43
million Americans'' and the findings pertaining to ``discrete
and insular minority.''
Let me conclude, Mr. Chairman and Mr. McKeon, by noting
that this past July 26, we marked the 17th anniversary of this
landmark law. I believe that its promise remains unfulfilled,
but very much still within our reach. Passage of this
legislation is imperative to restoring congressional intent, to
achieving the ADA's promise, and to creating a society in which
Americans with disabilities can realize their potential and
have a confidence that they will not be discriminated against,
notwithstanding their ability.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement of Mr. Hoyer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Steny H. Hoyer, Majority Leader, U.S. House
of Representatives
Chairman Miller, Ranking Member McKeon, and Members of the
Committee: Thank you for holding this hearing on H.R. 3195, the ``ADA
Restoration Act of 2007''--legislation that was introduced last July 26
and which already has been co-sponsored by 244 Members from both sides
of the aisle.
Let me assure you of one thing at the outset of my testimony: The
purpose of this legislation is straight-forward and unambiguous.
The bill does not seek to expand the rights guaranteed under the
landmark Americans With Disabilities Act.
Instead, it seeks to clarify the law, restoring the scope of
protection available under the ADA. It responds to court decisions that
have sharply restricted the class of people who can invoke protection
under the law. And it reinstates the original Congressional intent when
we passed the ADA.
When the first President Bush signed the ADA into law on July 26,
1990, he hailed it as ``the world's first comprehensive declaration of
equality for people with disabilities.'' This landmark civil rights law
prohibited discrimination against Americans with disabilities in the
workplace, public accommodations, and other settings.
We knew that it would not topple centuries of prejudice overnight,
but we believed that it could change attitudes and unleash the talents
of millions of Americans with disabilities.
And, we were right. Since its enactment, thousands of Americans
with disabilities have entered the workplace, realizing self-
sufficiency for the first time in their lives.
However, despite our progress, the courts--including the U.S.
Supreme Court--have narrowly interpreted the ADA, limiting its scope
and undermining its intent.
When we wrote the ADA, we intentionally used a definition of
``disability'' that was broad--borrowing from an existing definition
from the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
We did this because the courts had generously interpreted this
definition in the Rehabilitation Act. And, we thought using established
language would help us avoid a potentially divisive political debate
over the definition of ``disabled.''
Therefore, we could not have fathomed that people with diabetes,
epilepsy, heart conditions, cancer, and mental illnesses would have
their ADA claims kicked out of court because, with medication, they
would be considered too functional to meet the definition of
``disabled.''
Nor could we have anticipated a situation where an individual may
be considered too disabled by an employer to get a job, but not
disabled enough by the courts to be protected by the ADA from
discrimination.
The Supreme Court's decisions in the Sutton, Kirkingburg and Murphy
cases in 1999, and Toyota Manufacturing in 2002 are, simply put,
misinterpretations of the law.
In Toyota Manufacturing, for example, Justice O'Connor, writing for
the Court, said the terms ``substantially limited'' and ``major life
activities,'' need to be ``strictly interpreted to create a demanding
standard for qualifying as disabled.'' The Court went on to say that
``substantially limited'' means to prevent or severely restrict. This
was not our intent when Congress passed the ADA.
Nor did we anticipate that, contrary to our explicit instructions,
the Court would eliminate from the Act's coverage individuals who have
mitigated the effects of their impairments with medication or assistive
devices, as in Sutton, Murphy and Kirkingburg.
Again, this is not what Congress intended when it passed the ADA.
We intended a broad application of this law. Simply put, the point of
the ADA is not disability, it is the prevention of wrongful and
unlawful discrimination.
Let me be clear: Only people who can prove that they have been
discriminated against on the basis of a real or perceived disability
have a potentially valid claim under the ADA. Such people must also
prove that they are qualified to do the job, with or without a
reasonable accommodation.
H.R. 3195--introduced by myself and Congressman Sensenbrenner, the
former Chairman of the Judiciary Committee--is designed to restore the
broad reach of ADA that we believed was plain in 1990.
Among other things, the bill will:
amend the definition of ``disability'' so that people who
Congress originally intended to protect from discrimination are covered
under the ADA;
prevent courts from considering ``mitigating measures''--
such as eyeglasses or medication--when determining whether a person
qualifies for protection under the law; and
modify findings in the ADA that have been used by the
courts to support a narrow reading of ``disability.'' Specifically,
this bill strikes the finding pertaining to ``43 million Americans''
and the finding pertaining to ``discrete and insular minority.''
Let me conclude by noting that this past July 26th, we marked the
17th anniversary of this landmark law. I believe that its promise
remains unfulfilled but very much still within reach.
Passage of this legislation--H.R. 3195--is imperative to restoring
Congressional intent, to achieving the ADA's promise, and to creating a
society in which Americans with disabilities can realize their
potential.
______
Mr. Andrews. Thank you, Mr. Leader. I think that your
statement very persuasively demonstrated why 243 of your
colleagues have taken the position that you have, including
many members of this committee on both sides of the aisle. So
thank you.
Mr. Hoyer. Mr. Chairman, if I could just observe on that
issue in response to Mr. McKeon's observations. The ADA passed
with some 400 votes through the House of Representatives, but
it was a very long and focused process that we went through in
four major committees and a number of subcommittees before we
got the legislation passed. We worked very hard on it. We think
it did what we wanted to do. We think, as I have said, that the
court cases misinterpret our intent.
But it is not so much the misinterpretation of our intent
that is important. It is the consequence for those people to
whom we were opening the doors, which is what the first
President Bush talked about in terms of giving them full access
to the opportunities America provides.
I thank the chairman for this opportunity to testify. I
know you look forward to hearing from some folks who are
extraordinarily committed and courageous and knowledgeable
about this issue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Andrews. We thank you.
Do any of our majority members have a question for the
majority leader?
Mr. McKeon, do any of your members have a question for the
majority leader?
Mr. Hoyer. I want to thank all the members.
Mr. Holt. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Andrews. Yes, Mr. Holt?
Mr. Holt. Just to add to your earlier comments, to thank
the majority leader for his years of effort to prevent the
arbitrary discrimination and to support those who are working
so hard for access and equal opportunity.
Mr. Hoyer. Thank you. I appreciate that very much.
Mr. Andrews. Thank you, Mr. Hoyer. Now, go make the place
run. [Laughter.]
Mr. Hoyer. A heavy responsibility, but I will try to carry
it out. [Laughter.]
Mr. Andrews. Yes, sir.
I would ask if the witnesses from the second panel could
approach the table and take their seats. I am going to begin
the process of reading their introductions now, so we can get
to their testimony.
Mr. Andrew Imparato is the president and chief executive
officer of the American Association of People with
Disabilities. Prior to joining the AAPD, Imparato was general
counsel and director of policy for the National Council on
Disability. Mr. Imparato graduated from Yale College and
Stanford Law School.
Mr. Carey McClure is an electrician and a resident of
Griffin, Georgia. We welcome him. He enjoys fishing, playing
games with friends, and spending time with his children and
grandchildren. We welcome Mr. McClure.
Mr. David Fram is the director, ADA and EEO services, of
the National Employment Law Institute. From 1991 to 1996, Mr.
Fram--did I pronounce your name correctly, Mr. Fram?
Mr. Fram. Fram.
Mr. Andrews. Fram.
Mr. Fram. Close enough.
Mr. Andrews. Okay. Mr. Fram was policy attorney in the
Office of Legal Counsel for the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission here in Washington. Prior to joining the EEOC, Mr.
Fram was with the firm of Hogan and Hartson in Washington.
Welcome.
And finally, Professor Robert Burgdorf is a professor at
the University of the District of Columbia, the David A. Clarke
School of Law. He directs the legislation clinic and teaches
disability rights law and constitutional law. The United States
Supreme Court has recognized Professor Burgdorf as, ``the
drafter of the original ADA bill introduced in Congress in
1988''--quite a testimony to your competence being here today.
Gentlemen, we welcome you. The rules are that your written
statements will be accepted into the record of the hearing
without objection, so everything you have had to tell the
committee will be part of the permanent record of these
proceedings. We would ask you to summarize those written
statements in 5 minutes or less so that we can get to dialogue
and questions from the members of the committee.
In front of you, you will see a box with lights on the box.
You have 5 minutes, as we said, to summarize your views. When
the yellow light appears, it means you have 1 minute remaining
on your time. When the red light appears, it means that your 5
minutes is up and we would ask you to briefly wrap things up so
we can get to questions from the members.
So we welcome you. We are very glad that you are with us.
Mr. Imparato, we would ask that you begin with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF ANDREW IMPARATO, PRESIDENT AND CEO, AMERICAN
ASSOCIATION OF PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
Mr. Imparato. Thank you very much, Congressman Andrews and
Ranking Member McKeon and everybody on the committee for being
here and for having a hearing on this very important topic.
As a Baltimore resident, I also want to acknowledge one of
our representatives. Congressman Sarbanes, it is great to see
you here. Our children play piano together, so it is good to
see you in another context.
You know, I want to start just by saying I am here as an
attorney who graduated from law school in 1990, the year that
the Americans with Disabilities Act was enacted into law. I
personally have bipolar disorder and manic depression, and I am
one of thousands of professionals who have developed our
careers in the context of a law that protected our civil
rights.
I have been very open about my disability, and it hasn't
kept me from accomplishing my career goals. I think that was
one of the things that those of you who are here and worked on
the ADA the first time around were hoping would happen, so I
wanted to start in that positive vein.
I am testifying today on behalf of the American Association
of People with Disabilities, which was founded on the fifth
anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Our mission
is to organize the disability community defined broadly so that
we have more power politically, socially and economically.
I also want to join Majority Leader Hoyer in acknowledging
Cheryl Sensenbrenner, who is the chair of my board at the
American Association of People with Disabilities. I want to
acknowledge Majority Leader Hoyer and Congressman Sensenbrenner
for their leadership on this bipartisan effort.
The ADA Restoration Act is the top legislative priority for
AAPD, and we believe it is critically important that the ADA's
protection of equal employment opportunity be extended to all
the people who Congress intended when you passed the ADA in
1990, including people with epilepsy, diabetes, cancer,
depression, intellectual disabilities, and a whole host of
other conditions who have been told by federal courts that they
aren't disabled enough to have civil rights protections.
The ADA gave hope to millions of Americans with
disabilities and we must pass ADA restoration so that we can
restore that hope for people like my colleague, Carey McClure,
who you are about to hear from, who have been removed from the
ADA's protections by activist judges.
On a personal level, because of what the courts have done
to the ADA, I no longer believe that I can count on the law to
protect me against employment discrimination. At a minimum if I
were to bring a case, I would be subject to a barrage of
personal questions that have nothing to do with my
qualifications on the job.
The ADA is not a disability retirement law, but the Supreme
Court and the lower federal courts have gone out of their way
to read the ADA as if it were only for people with disabilities
that are so significant that they cannot work and cannot take
care of themselves. Under this narrow reading, two of the ADA's
strongest legislative champions, Tony Coelho and Bob Dole,
would likely be told by a federal court that they are not
disabled enough to be protected by the ADA.
Employment discrimination cases should be about how a
person is treated in the workplace. But because of Supreme
Court decisions like the 2002 Toyota v. Williams case that
Majority Leader Hoyer referenced, we have come to a point where
the Supreme Court has opined that the term ``disability'' is to
be ``interpreted strictly to create a demanding standard for
qualifying as disabled,'' and victims of disability
discrimination are finding it harder and harder to reach the
issue of how they were treated by their employer.
Citing the Williams case, the 11th Circuit ruled last May
in Littleton v. Wal-Mart that a 29-year-old with an
intellectual disability who was receiving Social Security
disability benefits, did not submit enough evidence to
establish that he had a disability for purposes of the ADA.
Examining whether Mr. Littleton was substantially limited in a
major life activity, the 11th Circuit stated that, ``It is
unclear whether thinking, communicating and social interaction
are major life activities under the ADA.'' The court went on to
use evidence about Mr. Littleton's ability to drive and be
interviewed for a job against him on the issue of his
disability.
I just want to briefly mention the broader policy context
for this legislation. This is a committee that oversees the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the ADA, the
Vocational Rehabilitation legislation, and I ask you as a
committee, what is the message that you want to send to people
with disabilities? Do we want to send 18 years after the
Americans with Disabilities Act the message that you should be
careful not to achieve to your full potential, be careful not
to live as independently as possible, or you may lose your
federal civil rights protections?
That is the message that the court decisions are sending to
people with disabilities. That is the message that a lot of our
disability benefit programs are sending to people with
disabilities. Those programs need to be modernized.
But certainly in the area of civil rights, we should be
sending the message that people with disabilities should
achieve to their full potential, should enjoy their civil
rights protections, and cases of employment discrimination
should turn on whether they are qualified for the job, not how
disabled they are.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. I look
forward to the questions.
[The statement of Mr. Imparato follows:]
Prepared Statement of Andrew J. Imparato, President and Chief Executive
Officer, American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD)
Chairman Miller, Ranking Member McKeon, and Members of the House
Committee on Education and Labor: Thank you for the opportunity to
provide testimony today in support of the Americans with Disabilities
Act Restoration Act (ADA Restoration Act) of 2007, H.R. 3195. My name
is Andrew J. Imparato and I am the President and Chief Executive
Officer of the American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD).
With more than 100,000 members around the country, AAPD is the largest
cross-disability membership organization in the United States. AAPD's
mission is to organize the disability community to be a powerful force
for change--socially, politically and economically. Founded on the
fifth anniversary of the signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA), AAPD has a strong interest in the full enforcement and
implementation of this landmark civil rights law. On behalf of the
Board, staff and members of AAPD, I applaud you for holding this
hearing today and for devoting your attention to one of the top policy
priorities of the disability community.
Prior to joining AAPD in 1999, I worked as an attorney at the
Disability Law Center in Boston, the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on
Disability Policy, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
and the National Council on Disability. In my role as General Counsel
and Director of Policy at NCD, I oversaw a multi-year study of federal
enforcement of the ADA and other civil rights laws for people with
disabilities.
I am honored to testify today along with Professor Robert Burgdorf,
an attorney and disability leader who played such an important role in
conceptualizing and drafting the ADA when he worked for the National
Council on Disability (NCD) in the late 1980s. Professor Burgdorf also
helped to lead NCD's more recent effort to develop recommendations for
the legislative changes needed to restore the ADA to its original
intent in the wake of a number of highly problematic Supreme Court and
lower federal court decisions that have severely restricted the scope
of the protected class and made it difficult for people with a wide
range of disabilities to bring claims for discrimination in employment.
Since the ADA's passage, courts have repeatedly told plaintiffs--who
are seeking not federal disability retirement benefits but simply fair
treatment in the workplace--that their conditions do not rise to the
level of an ADA disability and that they are not protected against
discrimination under the ADA.
Having graduated law school in 1990, I am one of many professionals
with disabilities who have pursued our careers armed with a federal law
designed to ensure our equal employment opportunity. I was a third year
law student when I experienced my first episode of serious depression.
Seemingly overnight, I went from being a confident visiting student at
Harvard Law School to having difficulty getting out of bed and making
it through the day. I was blessed to have an incredibly supportive wife
and was able to get the support I needed to finish law school and begin
my career. Since that time, I have lived with recurrent episodes of
depression and hypomania, with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder or manic
depression. I spend approximately six months every year with low energy
and low self-confidence followed by six months of high energy, high
self-confidence, and limited patience. One of the symptoms of
depression is a tendency to undervalue one's skills and work capacity,
and I remember during my first bout with depression wondering if I
would be able to function in a full-time professional environment. I
now know that going to work every day in a field that I find compelling
has turned out to be one of the strongest mood stabilizers in my life.
I strongly believe in the therapeutic value of work for people with
psychiatric conditions and a wide range of disabilities, and I am
deeply troubled that we have not seen measurable increases in the
employment rates of people with significant disabilities since the
ADA's enactment in 1990.\1\ A report out from the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) just this month\2\ has only added to my
alarm and dismay. The report notes a decline in the employment of
people with significant disabilities in the federal government every
year for more than the last decade, in sharp contrast to the overall
growth of the federal workforce.
As someone who has been very open about my diagnosis over the
course of my legal career, I have found it difficult to predict how
people may react upon learning that I have bipolar disorder. It is my
observation, especially in instances in which a disability is not
visible or readily apparent, that people have the tendency either to
question whether it is real or to assume that it is so severe that it
disqualifies that person from particular jobs or assignments. One of
our challenges as disability advocates is to facilitate the ability of
individuals to be open about their disabilities and have them be taken
seriously and accommodated at work if necessary, all the while avoiding
overreactions by employers or prospective employers upon learning of a
diagnosis. Surmounting such attitudinal barriers leads to better
employment outcomes, greater productivity, and a healthier work climate
for the millions of Americans who still feel the need to keep their
disabilities and chronic health conditions a secret at work.
For the most part, I have been quite fortunate to have found
employers and mentors who have cultivated my talents and created
opportunities for me to grow and demonstrate my abilities. However,
that is not to say that I have been nor will continue to be immune from
facing discrimination in the workplace. Until recent years, I took
comfort in knowing that I had civil rights protections should I ever
need them. Unfortunately, in light of a number of narrowing court
decisions in the last decade, I no longer have confidence that the ADA
would protect me if I needed it. Because of court decisions that have
aggressively narrowed the scope of the ADA's protected class, were I to
bring a claim of disability employment discrimination today, a court
would likely conclude that my employment successes and integrated
family life indicate that my diagnosis is not sufficiently disabling to
claim the protections of the ADA, even in light of blatant
discrimination on the basis of my bipolar disorder.\3\ At a minimum, I
could expect to be subjected to a battery of questions probing into the
intimate details of my life and disability that are entirely irrelevant
to my ability to perform the job. Throughout the country, this has
become not the exception but the norm for victims of employment
discrimination on the basis of disability who attempt to have their day
in court. I will highlight several of their stories throughout my
testimony. Their stories help to demonstrate that this problem is not
limited to a single outlier judge, a problematic employer or particular
geographic region. Rather, the troubling case law, which is voluminous,
is indicative of a growing nationwide problem that requires a
Congressional remedy.
I am here today to testify that the broad remedial statute that
Congress wrote and passed in 1990 has fallen victim to a form of
judicial activism whereby the U.S. Supreme Court and the lower federal
courts have made it increasingly difficult for individuals with
epilepsy, diabetes, amputations, various forms of cancer, and a wide
range of mental and physical conditions to establish that they have a
disability for purposes of the ADA. On account of these narrowing court
decisions, Americans who experience employment discrimination on the
basis of their disabilities are increasingly precluded from reaching
the issue of whether they were treated fairly in the workplace because
their cases are being tossed out of court on the issue of whether their
disability is ``severe enough'' to come under the protections of the
ADA. In fact, data suggests that as many as 97% of all disability
discrimination cases are decided in favor of the employer, often before
the individual even has the opportunity to demonstrate how their
treatment was unfair.\4\ So much a deviation is the ADA's current state
of affairs from original Congressional intent that Members of Congress
and the former U.S. Attorney General, involved in its original passage,
have repeatedly stated their displeasure\5\ and their support of H.R.
3195 as a remedy to the courts' damage.
In 1990, the ADA was heralded as an ``emancipation proclamation''
\6\ for people with disabilities. Seventeen years later, on account of
judicial activism, we are far from having a law that can be counted on
to safeguard the fair treatment of people with disabilities in the
workplace. On the contrary, we have a federal court decision from just
last May in which Charles Littleton, Jr., a young man with intellectual
and developmental disabilities who was attempting to start work as a
cart pusher at a local retailer through the help of a state vocational
assistance program, was told that he did not qualify for the ADA's
protections after he experienced discrimination during the hiring
process. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals noted about Mr.
Littleton, who lives with his mother, has the cognitive abilities of an
8 year-old, and receives Social Security disability benefits: ``We do
not doubt that Littleton has certain limitations because of his mental
retardation. In order to qualify as `disabled' under the ADA, however,
Littleton has the burden of proving that he actually is * * *
substantially limited as to `major life activities' under the ADA.''
\7\ Later in their analysis, the court stated that no evidence existed
to support Mr. Littleton's contention that his intellectual
disabilities substantially limit him in major life activities,
explaining, ``It is unclear whether thinking, communicating, and social
interaction are `major life activities' under the ADA.'' \8\
How did we end up with such absurd court decisions all over the
country, and how do we fix them?
When Congress wrote and passed the ADA in 1990, it included in the
statute a definition of ``individual with a disability'' that had been
used since 1978 under the federal Rehabilitation Act. That three-
pronged definition provides protections for individuals with a physical
or mental impairment that substantially limits at lease one major life
activity; individuals with a history of such an impairment; or
individuals who are regarded or perceived as having such an impairment
and treated unfairly on that basis. As the Supreme Court noted in its
1987 Nassau County School Board v. Arline decision, ``By amending the
definition of `handicapped individual' to include not only those who
are actually physically impaired, but also those who are regarded as
impaired * * *, Congress acknowledged that society's accumulated myths
and fears about disability and disease are as handicapping as are the
physical limitations that flow from actual impairment.'' \9\ This key
observation, coupled with over a decade of federal case law
interpreting the definition of ``handicap'' in the Rehabilitation Act
broadly, gave Congress every reason to expect that the ADA's definition
would receive a similarly broad construction by the courts, thus
protecting people with all kinds of disabilities against employment
discrimination.
Regrettably, beginning with a trio of Supreme Court decisions in
1999, we have witnessed an aggressive effort by the federal courts to
narrow the scope of who qualifies for civil rights protections under
the ADA. In Sutton v. United Airlines and two related 1999
decisions,\10\ the Supreme Court ruled that people who are able to
function well with the help of ``mitigating measures,'' including
medication, prosthetics, diet, hearing aids, etc., should not be
considered substantially limited even if they clearly are so in their
natural or unmitigated state. This holding, which directly contradicted
the positions of the all of the federal agencies charged with enforcing
the ADA,\11\ the eight federal Courts of Appeal that had addressed
``mitigating measures'' prior to Sutton case,\12\ as well as the report
language of Congressional committees that helped to write the ADA,\13\
has led to a string of decisions in which plaintiffs are told that
their serious health conditions do not rise to the level of
``disabilities'' and therefore they are not within the law's protected
class. That is what happened to Ruth Eckhaus. Ms. Eckhaus, a railroad
employee who used a hearing aid and who was told by her employer that
they ``could not hire someone with a hearing aid because [the employer]
had no way of knowing if she would remember to bring her hearing aid to
work,'' \14\ was not protected by the ADA when she sought to bring a
case of employment discrimination. The court held that Ms. Eckhaus
``failed to show that her hearing impairment, when corrected by hearing
aids, substantially limits a major life activity,'' \15\ and was
therefore not ``disabled'' for purposes of the ADA's protections.
The effect of the Sutton trilogy is that people with all kinds of
disabilities, who make use of a treatment or support to enable
themselves to participate more fully and independently in society,
including in the workplace, are increasingly finding themselves without
the ADA's civil rights protections. Moreover, when employees attempt to
establish that they do indeed have a disability by introducing evidence
that was previously unknown to the employer and that did not form the
basis for the adverse action being challenged, that evidence is then
being used successfully by employers to argue that the employee is not
qualified in the first place for the position in question.\16\
The damage caused by the mitigating measures decisions has been
magnified by other rulings, notably the 2002 Supreme Court decision in
Toyota v. Williams.\17\ In Williams, contrary to the clear intent of
Congress that the law be construed broadly as a remedial measure, the
Court ruled that that the definition of disability needed to be
interpreted strictly ``* * * to create a demanding standard for
qualifying as disabled.'' \18\ Lower courts certainly took note of the
Williams decision, ruling in case after case that people with all
varieties of disabilities--muscular dystrophy,\19\ epilepsy,\20\
traumatic brain injury,\21\ amputation,\22\ breast cancer (and
accompanying masectomy, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy),\23\
fractured spine\24\--are not disabled for purposes of the protections
of the ADA. Mr. Carey McClure, an electrician who has muscular
dystrophy, is here today to give his own account of how the Williams
decision did just that to his case of employment discrimination in the
Fifth Circuit.
The universe of people who could experience discrimination in the
workplace on the basis of fears, myths, and stereotypes surrounding
physical attributes, psychiatric conditions, or medical diagnoses is
extensive, and the ADA was created with all of these people and
circumstances in mind. Unlike an analysis for a disability retirement
program's cash benefit, civil rights laws should be construed broadly
to ensure equality for all Americans. This was the clear intent of
Congress and the President in 1990, and the ADA Restoration Act seeks
to reinstate this objective.
Disability civil rights laws start with the recognition that
disability is a natural part of the human experience that in no way
should limit a person from participating fully in all aspects of
society. Some people are born with their disabilities. Others acquire
them through accident or injury or while placing themselves in harm's
way in service of our country. Unlike other protected classes,
disability is a category that any person at any time can join. A broad
interpretation of the ADA is something that every American can benefit
from if and when they experience disability discrimination.
People with disabilities should have every incentive to function to
the fullest extent of their abilities and not be punished for their
successes nor subjected to a fishing expedition regarding the extent of
their disabilities when they seek to challenge discrimination at work.
Each summer, AAPD places college students with varied disabilities into
summer internships on the Hill and in the federal Executive Branch.
Each of our interns has worked exceptionally hard in school and life
and many have garnered a number of impressive awards and recognitions.
As they graduate and enter the workforce, I hope they continue to
encounter work environments that appreciate their work ethic and focus
on their skills and abilities rather than on their disabilities. In
light of the Supreme Court's restrictive interpretations of the ADA,
however, I fear, given how much they have been able to achieve, whether
they too would be shut out of the ADA's protections should they ever
require them.
I think, too, of our country's returning Iraq and Afghanistan war
veterans. I think of the estimates that as many as 60-70% of all
wounded returning veterans may have traumatic brain injury (TBI).\25\
Many others are returning with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD),
epilepsy, depression, hearing impairments, loss of limbs, and other
complex conditions. Once these veterans begin to return to the
workforce in greater numbers, what trends will emerge regarding their
integration and civil rights protections in the workplace, given that
case law surrounding each of these disabilities is increasingly dismal?
Moreover, my two sons, ages 9 and 14, may be genetically
predisposed to bipolar disorder. What civil rights legacy can we
promise them if we do not right this law?
As members of the Education and Labor Committee, you know that our
nation's policies under the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the ADA and other laws are designed to
promote equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living
and economic self-sufficiency for people with disabilities. Due to a
series of decisions limiting the scope of the ADA, probably best
exemplified by the recent Littleton decision, people with disabilities
are being forced to give up their civil rights protections when they
try to improve their functioning and participate in the economic
mainstream. Whereas Congress intended the ADA to tear down the shameful
wall of exclusion that had barred people with a wide range of
disabilities from achieving to their full potential, the federal courts
have contorted the law to the point where they have created a new wall
that is keeping disabled victims of discrimination from ever reaching
the issue of whether they were treated fairly or discriminated against
at work.
The ADA Restoration Act, H.R. 3195, is a straightforward bill that
will make it crystal clear that employment discrimination cases should
be about how a person was treated at work and not about whether that
person's impairments make it hard to brush one's teeth,\26\ comb one's
hair,\27\ or have children.\28\ The bill will refocus the courts on an
employee or applicant's qualifications and performance and away from
intimate details about their disabilities that are irrelevant to the
workplace and often unknown to their employer or prospective employer.
It will restore civil rights protections for people with epilepsy,
diabetes, cancer, depression, amputations, and a whole host of physical
and mental disabilities who have been denied their day in court because
of activist judicial rulings that ignore legislative history and
Congressional intent. It will end the perverse incentive created by
court rulings that punish people who successfully manage their
disabilities and enter the workforce.
I am delighted that H.R. 3195 has attracted broad bipartisan
support in the House under the strong leadership of Congressmen Steny
Hoyer and Jim Sensenbrenner, and I encourage this Committee to mark it
up and send it to the House floor with strong bipartisan support. H.R.
3195 will recreate the level playing field that Congress had in mind
when it passed the ADA in 1990. It will send a message to the activist
bench that they should adhere to Congressional intent and not rewrite
laws to suit their own political or policy agenda. It will not solve
all of the many challenges that people with disabilities continue to
face in the workplace, but it will reestablish a solid foundation on
which we can build policies and programs to bring more people with
disabilities into the economic mainstream.
Thank you again for the opportunity to provide testimony, and I
look forward to your questions.
endnotes
\1\ Despite many factors contributing to a positive outlook for
employment of people with disabilities, including the passage of civil
rights laws like the ADA, the employment rate of people with
disabilities has not improved significantly, as EEOC Chair Naomi C.
Earp pointed out in her testimony during the September 13, 2006 ADA
Oversight Hearing held by the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee
on the Constitution. See also Harris, L. & Associates (1998) N.O.D./
Harris Survey Program on Participation and Attitudes: Survey of
Americans with Disabilities. New York. See also L. Harris & Associates,
N.O.D./Harris Survey Program on Participation and Attitudes: Survey of
Americans with Disabilities (2004).
\2\ ``Improving the Participation Rate of People with Targeted
Disabilities in the Federal Workforce,'' available at: www.eeoc.gov/
federal/report/pwtd.html, noting that while federal government grew by
135,000 workers between fiscal years 1997 and 2006, the number of
federal employees with significant disabilities decreased from 28,671
to 24,442, leaving them at 0.94 percent of the overall federal
workforce.
\3\ In fact, case law already exists which has found bipolar
disorder not to be a disability under the ADA. Johnson v. North
Carolina Dep't of Health and Human Servs., (M.D.N.C. 2006).
\4\ See Amy L. Allbright, 2004 Employment Decisions Under the ADA
Title I--Survey Update, 29 Mental & Physical Disability L. Rep. 513,
513 (July/August 2005) (stating that in 2004, ``[o]f the 200
[employment discrimination] decisions that resolved the claim (and have
not yet been changed on appeal), 97 percent resulted in employer wins
and 3 percent in employee wins'').
\5\ Press release of Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, ``Hoyer
Introduces Americans with Disabilities Restoration Act of 2007,''
available at: http://hoyer.house.gov/Newsroom/
index.asp?ID=955&DocumentType=Press+Release, stating: ``Let me be
clear: This is not what Congress intended when it passed the ADA. We
intended a broad application of this law. Simply put, the point of the
ADA is not disability, it is the prevention of wrongful and unlawful
discrimination;'' Emailed letter of the Honorable Dick Thornburgh,
Former Attorney General of the United States, to the Honorable Orrin
Hatch, requesting support of the ADA Restoration Act of 2007, available
at: http://www.aapd.com/News/adainthe/071025dt.htm, referencing the
current circumstances as an ``untenable situation'' and stating:
``Under a series of court decisions, the definition of who qualifies as
an `individual with a disability' has become so restrictive and
difficult to prove that millions of people we intended to protect from
discrimination--including people with epilepsy, diabetes and cancer--
are no longer covered by the law's protections.''
\6\ See Remarks of President George Bush at the Signing of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, available at http://www.eeoc.gov/ada/
bushspeech.html; See also Remarks from Senators Orrin G. Hatch and
Edward M. Kennedy, at National Council on Disability, The Americans
with Disabilities Act Policy Brief Series: Righting the ADA, No. 1:
Introductory Paper (October 16, 2002), available at http://www.ncd.gov/
newsroom/publications/2002/rightingtheada.htm.
\7\ Littleton v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 05-12770, 2007 WL
1379986, at *4 (11th Cir. May 11, 2007).
\8\ Id., at *3.
\9\ Nassau County School Board v. Arline, 480 U.S. 273, at 283-284
(1987).
\10\ Sutton v. United Airlines, 527 U.S. 471 (1999); ); Murphy v.
United Parcel Service, Inc., 527 U.S. 516 (1999); Albertson's, Inc. v.
Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. 555 (1999).
\11\ Sutton, 527 U.S. at 496-97 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
\12\ Id., (listing cases).
\13\ See, e.g., Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, S.
REP. NO. 101-116 at 121 (1989), stating: ``[W]hether a person has a
disability should be assessed without regard to the availability of
mitigating measures, such as reasonable accommodations or auxiliary
aids.''
\14\ Eckhaus v. Consolidated Rail, Corp., No. Civ. 00-5748 (WGB),
2003 WL 23205042, at *5 (D.N.J. Dec. 24, 2003).
\15\ Id., at *9.
\16\ See Claudia Center & Andrew J. Imparato, Redefining
``Disability'' Discrimination: A Proposal to Restore Civil Rights
Protections for All Workers, 14 STAN. L. & POL'Y REV. 321 (2003).
\17\ Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534
U.S. 184 (2002).
\18\ Id., at 197.
\19\ McClure v. General Motors Corp., 75 Fed. Appx. 983, 2003 WL
21766539 (5th Cir. 2003).
\20\ Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Sara Lee Corp., 237
F.3d 349 (4th Cir. 2001).
\21\ Phillips v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 78 F. Supp. 2d 1274 (S.D.
Ala. 1999).
\22\ Williams v. Cars Collision Center, LLC, No. 06 C 2105 (N.D.
Ill. July 9, 2007).
\23\ Pimental v. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Clinic, 236 F. Supp. 2d 177,
183 (D.N.H. 2002).
\24\ Williams v. Excel Foundry & Machine, Inc., 489 F.3d 309, 311
(7th Cir. 2007)
\25\ Institute of Medicine, the National Academies, Evaluating the
HRSA Traumatic Brain Injury Program, Washington, D.C.: The National
Academies Press, Eden, Jill and Rosemary Stevens, Editors, 2006, p. 41.
\26\ McClure v. General Motors Corp., 75 Fed. Appx. 983, 2003 WL
21766539 (5th Cir. 2003).
\27\ Id.
\28\ Pimental v. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Clinic, 236 F. Supp. 2d 177,
183 (D.N.H. 2002).
______
Mr. Andrews. Mr. Imparato, thank you, and I apologize for
leaving briefly in the middle of your testimony. I have read it
and appreciate it. I think that your personal insights further
amplify the scholarship and work you have done here. Thank you
very, very much.
Mr. McClure, welcome to the committee. We are happy to have
you here.
STATEMENT OF CAREY MCCLURE, ELECTRICIAN
Mr. McClure. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, good morning. My
name is Carey McClure, and I am from Griffin, Georgia. I am an
electrician and I would like to thank you for holding his
hearing to give me a chance to tell my story.
I have been an electrician for over 20 years. I have always
wanted to be an electrician, and I have loved to do it. When I
was 15 years old, I was diagnosed with facioscapulohumeral
muscular dystrophy. As a result of my condition, the muscles in
my face, back and upper arms are weak. I have constant pain in
my shoulders, and I will now show you how high I can lift my
arms in the air. That is the highest they will go.
Like so many other people with disabilities, I found ways
to live with my condition. For instance, I use a step-stool in
the kitchen so I can reach the cabinets. When I shampoo my
hair, I support one hand with the other to get my hand over my
head, like this.
I do much the same to comb my hair, brush my teeth. Instead
of wearing T-shirts, I generally wear button-down shirts, which
don't require me to raise my arms over my head. When I eat, I
hold my head over my plate and prop my elbow on the table so
that I can raise the fork or spoon to my mouth. The point is,
my muscular dystrophy does not stop me from living my life.
There is virtually nothing I can't do.
Unfortunately, General Motors didn't feel the same way. My
father and brother both work for General Motors, so you could
say that General Motors practically raised me. General Motors
supported our family, it pays well, and offers good benefits.
For as long as I can remember, it has been a dream job for me.
In September, 1999, I applied for an electrical position at
the General Motors assembly plant in Arlington, Texas. The
following month, General Motors invited me to fly out to its
Texas assembly plant and take a written and practical exam. I
passed both of them. In December of 1999, GM sent me a letter
and offered me a job and asked me to take a pre-employment
physical.
I called back and accepted the job and scheduled an
appointment with the GM plant medical director for January 5,
about a week before I started my job. In the meantime, I got
ready for the big move. I quite my electrical job at the
roofing company, sold my house in Griffin, Georgia, withdrew my
daughter from high school, and packed up all the things we
needed in anticipation of the relocation.
When I got to Texas, I went to the plant medical director's
office for my physical exam. The physical went fine until the
doctor asked me to lift my arms above my head, which I could
not do. The doctor asked me hypothetically how I could reach
electrical work above my head. I told him I would get a ladder.
He asked, what if a ladder would not reach high enough? I told
him I would get a taller ladder. [Laughter.]
For over 20 years, I have been an electrician. For over 20
years, I have been working on things above my head without a
problem. Sometimes I throw my arms above my head and lock my
elbows. Most of the time there is something that I can prop my
arm against so I can reach it just like if I am brushing my
teeth. Other times, all it takes is a step-stool or to have a
ladder or a hydraulic lift as other electricians use. When I
toured the GM plant, I saw people using hydraulic lifts just
like I used on every other job I had.
But this doctor wouldn't hear it. He didn't think I could
do the job that I have been doing my entire life. He
recommended that GM revoke my job offer, and that is exactly
what they did. An assistant gave me the bad news, and I just
stood there stunned. I had just quit the previous job, sold my
house, packed my bags, relocated my family from Georgia to
Texas for the dream job I had been trying to get my whole
professional life. General Motors had just taken my dream job
away from me.
I didn't know much about the ADA, but I knew that I had a
disability and GM took the job away from me because of my
disability, not because I couldn't do the work of an
electrician. I can do the job. That is the bottom line. So I
found a lawyer and we filed a lawsuit. During my lawsuit,
General Motors asked me all sorts of personal questions like
how I comb my hair, how I brush my teeth. They asked me how I
play with my grandchildren. They asked me how I bathe and how I
clean my house. They even asked me how I would have
intercourse.
They asked me things that they didn't need to know, that
did not have anything to do with work at the GM plant. Even
though GM revoked my job offer for my disability, GM lawyers
started arguing with the court that I did not have a disability
at all. 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 am not, then I should be working with my father and
brother both at General Motors right now.
Unfortunately, the courts agreed with GM. The trial court
said to me, ``The ability to overcome the obstacles that life
has placed in my path is admirable,'' but that in light of my
abilities, I was no longer disabled because I had adapted so
well to living with muscular dystrophy, and made myself a
productive member of the workforce for over 20 years, the court
said I wasn't protected by the ADA. That doesn't make any sense
to me.
As I told the court who heard my case, if someone who was
suffering from an undisputable muscular dystrophy is not an
individual with a disability under the ADA, then who is? The
court told me that they were just interpreting the ADA like the
Supreme Court told them to, and that my problem was with the
Supreme Court, not them. Well, you can do something about the
Supreme Court's interpretation of the ADA. For the sake of
people with disabilities like me who want to work, but are
discriminated against, I hope you will.
Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak.
[The statement of Mr. McClure follows:]
Prepared Statement of Carey L. McClure, Electrician
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee: Good Morning. My name is
Carey McClure, and I am an electrician from Williamson, Georgia. I'd
like to thank you for holding this hearing today, and for giving me a
chance to tell my story.
I have been an electrician for over twenty years. I earned a
technical certificate from the United Electronics Institute after high
school and then worked my way up from apprentice electrician to
journeyman electrician. I've always wanted to be an electrician, and I
love what I do. It is my hobby, and it is my fun.
When I was fifteen years old, I was diagnosed with
facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy. ``Muscular dystrophy'' means
progressive muscle degeneration. ``Facioscapulohumeral'' refers to the
parts of my body that are most seriously affected: the muscles in my
face, shoulder blades, and upper arms. There are nine types of muscular
dystrophy, and this is mine. As a result of my condition, the muscles
in my face, back, and upper arms are weak. I'm unable to lift my arms
above shoulder-level, and I have constant pain in my shoulders.
But like so many other people with disabilities, I've found ways to
live with my condition. For instance, I have a stepstool in my kitchen
that I use to reach my cabinets. When I shampoo my hair, I support one
hand with the other to get it over my head, or I bend forward so my
hands can reach my head. I take showers because it's easier for me to
bathe all of my body parts standing rather than sitting down. When I
comb my hair or brush my teeth, I prop up my elbow with the other hand.
Instead of wearing T-shirts, I generally wear button-down shirts, which
don't require me to raise my arms over my head. To put on a T-shirt, I
bend at the waist and pull the back of the shirt over my head. When I
eat, I hold my head over my plate and prop my elbows on the table so
that I can raise my fork or spoon to my mouth. And while I love my
grandchildren, and play actively with them, I don't take care of them
alone for fear I might suddenly need to lift them above chest-height to
get them out of harm's way.
The point is, my muscular dystrophy doesn't stop me from living my
life. There is virtually nothing I can't do. Unfortunately, General
Motors (GM) didn't feel the same way.
My father and brother both work for GM, so I guess you could say GM
practically raised me. GM supported our family, and it pays really well
and offers good benefits. It's a great place to work, and for as long
as I can remember, it's been my ``dream job.''
I applied for an apprenticeship with GM three times, but those
positions were put on hold and never filled. I applied for a journeyman
electrician position another time, but there were 400 applicants for
seven or eight positions and so I didn't get that job either.
In September 1999, I gave it another shot and responded to a
newspaper ad seeking applicants for electrician positions at the GM
assembly plant in Arlington, Texas. This time was different. In
November 1999, GM invited me to fly out to its Texas assembly plant to
take a written exam and a practical, ``hands-on'' exam. I passed both
of them. In December 1999, GM sent me a letter offering me the job and
asked me to take a pre-employment physical. I called back and accepted
the job, and scheduled an appointment with GM's plant medical director
for January 5th--about a week before my start date.
In the meantime, I got ready for the big move. I quit my
electrician job with a roofing company; sold my house in Griffin,
Georgia; withdrew my daughter from her high school; and packed up all
of our things in anticipation of relocating.
When I got to Texas, I went on a tour of my new plant. From the
tour and the job description in the ad I answered, I knew that the job
I'd be filling would be easier than the one I had left in Georgia, and
would also pay better wages. At my prior job with the roofing company,
I was doing electrical maintenance on a production line. That meant
that I performed two completely different types of jobs: I was both an
electrician and a mechanic. If there was a 400-pound motor sitting
there that needed replacing, I'd have to disconnect the wires, unbolt
the motor, move the motor, put the new motor in, then wire it back up.
The position I'd accepted at GM was much more specialized. There, I
would be doing just the job of an electrician--I'd only have to
disconnect the wires and then let the GM mechanics take care of the
rest.
There was a doctor's office in the plant where I went for my
physical exam. It was a normal physical exam like those I'd taken and
passed for all of my other jobs. The physical went fine until the
doctor asked me to lift my arms above my head, which I could not do.
The doctor asked me hypothetically how I would reach electrical
work above my head. I told him I'd get a ladder. He asked what I'd do
if the work was higher than the ladder. I told him I'd get a taller
ladder.
For over twenty years, I've been an electrician. For over twenty
years, I've worked on things above my head without a problem. I've run
pipe all the way up against the ceiling. I've worked on lights all the
way up against the ceiling. Sometimes I throw my arms up in the air and
lock my elbows. Most of the time, there's an object next to me that I
can prop my arms on, just like I do when I'm brushing my teeth. Other
times, all it takes is a step-stool like I have for my cabinets, or a
ladder or a hydraulic lift like many electricians use. When I toured
the GM plant, I saw people using those hydraulic lifts just like at
every other job I'd had.
But this doctor wouldn't hear of it. He didn't think I could do a
job that I'd been doing my entire life, even though he later admitted
that he didn't even know what the functions of my electrician job were.
Regardless, he recommended that GM revoke my job offer, and that's
exactly what GM did. An assistant gave me the bad news, and I just
stood there stunned, in the middle of the doctor's office lobby, and I
didn't know what had hit me. I had just quit my previous job, had sold
my house, packed my bags, and relocated my family from Georgia to Texas
for the dream job I'd been trying for my whole professional life. GM
had just taken my dream job away from me.
I didn't know much about the Americans with Disabilities Act, but I
knew that I had a disability, and that GM took my job away because of
my disability--not because I couldn't work as an electrician. I can do
that job--that's the bottom line. So I found a lawyer, and we filed a
lawsuit.
During my lawsuit, GM's attorney asked me all sorts of personal
questions like how I comb my hair and how I brush my teeth. They asked
me how I play with my grandchildren. They asked me how I bathe, and how
I clean my house. They asked me how I drive a car. They even asked me
how I have intercourse. They asked me things they don't need to know--
things that don't have anything to do with my ability to work at GM.
Even though GM revoked my offer because of my disability, GM's
lawyers started arguing to the federal courts that I didn't have a
disability at all. 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 with my father and my brother at GM right
now.
Unfortunately, the courts agreed with GM. The trial court said that
my ``ability to overcome the obstacles that life has placed in my path
is admirable,'' but that in light of my ability, I was no longer
disabled. Basically, the court punished me for making myself a
productive member of the workforce for over twenty years. Because I'd
adapted so well to living with muscular dystrophy, the court said I
wasn't protected by the ADA. That doesn't make any sense to me.
I lost my case. I lost my house. And I lost two jobs--the
electrician job with the roofing company that I left, and the
electrician job that GM gave and then took away from me. But I have no
ill will towards GM. I still buy vehicles from them, and I'd work there
today if I could. That's all I've ever wanted to do.
I found another job after GM revoked its offer, but it took me six
months to find one that paid the same as my old job with the roofing
company, and it still didn't pay as high as GM. In my first evaluation
at that job, my boss ranked me excellent in five out of seven
categories and next highest on the other two.
I enjoy being an electrician, and I'm good at it. I wish that GM
had given me the chance to prove that I can do the job, and I wish that
the ADA had been there to protect me when GM didn't give me that
chance. Unfortunately, there are many people with disabilities like me
who are not getting the protection they deserve because the courts are
telling them that they're not ``disabled.''
As I told the courts who heard my case, ``if one who suffers from
undisputed muscular dystrophy is not an individual with a disability
under the ADA,'' then who is? The courts told me that they were just
interpreting the ADA like the Supreme Court told them to, and that my
problem was with the Supreme Court--not them. You can do something
about the Supreme Court's interpretation of the ADA. For the sake of
people with disabilities like me who want to work but are discriminated
against, I hope you will.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak before you today.
______
Mr. Andrews. Mr. McClure, thank you very much for coming
and telling us meaningful stories about your life that will
help us make the decisions we need to do. Thank you very, very
much. We appreciate it.
Mr. Fram, welcome. I understand you came here as a page,
and have extensive Washington history. Welcome back.
STATEMENT OF DAVID K. FRAM, DIRECTOR, ADA & EEO SERVICES,
NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW INSTITUTE
Mr. Fram. Thank you. My name is David Fram, and I am the
director of ADA training for the National Employment Law
Institute. I have provided ADA training to most federal
agencies, including the House, and most Fortune 500 companies.
My book, Resolving ADA Workplace Questions, which is now in its
23rd edition, analyzes the Supreme Court cases and all of the
federal Courts of Appeals cases on the issues. Prior to my work
with the Institute, I was a policy attorney in the ADA Division
of the EEOC.
It is because of my work on both sides of the issue that I
have been asked to address some of my concerns about the ADA
Restoration Act. It is important to first look at what the law
currently does. The ADA does two things. It says you can't
discriminate against somebody because of a disability, and it
says you have to provide a reasonable accommodation to an
otherwise qualified individual with a disability. And of
course, it defines ``disability'' as being an impairment that
substantially limits a major life activity.
Courts have very broadly over the years determined what is
an impairment. Any disorder is an impairment, so the flu, a
broken finger, a scar could be an impairment. The reason these
aren't disabilities is because they don't substantially limit a
major life activity. ``Substantially limits'' looks at
duration, looks at seriousness.
If somebody does have a disability, the next question, of
course, is whether that person is qualified. Do they have the
background and can they do the essential functions of the job?
Now, let us look at the three major changes proposed by the
Restoration Act. First, the act would change the definition of
``disability'' to cover any impairment, removing the
``substantial limitation'' requirement. So there would be no
degree of seriousness or duration. So a chipped tooth, the flu,
a broken finger would automatically be disabilities. It also
means that alopecia, having a hair impairment like mine, would
be an automatic disability. And it is just not correct to say
that this restores the ADA to what it was.
The statute on its face, the Rehab Act on which it was
based, the regulations from the EEOC--all say there has to be a
substantial limitation of a major life activity. In all of my
years at the EEOC and with the Institute, I have never heard
anyone argue that the ADA should cover all impairments.
Question--Would it be good policy to change the law in this
sweeping way? Now, I understand that proponents want to,
validly want to change the law so courts focus on whether there
has been discrimination, instead of focusing on whether there
is a disability. The problem is that the ADA is not like the
typical discrimination law. It requires reasonable
accommodation. So the proposed changes would potentially mean
that an employer has to give an accommodation to somebody like
me so I can get a hair transplant, and that can't be what
Congress intended.
Also, since employers have limited resources, it means that
somebody with the flu could be competing with somebody who has
lung cancer for the modified schedule. And that couldn't be
what Congress intended. Remember, the ADA also prohibits
disability-related questions of employees unless they are
specifically about the job. So if disability equals impairment,
that makes it flatly illegal for an employer, for a supervisor
to ask an employee, ``oh, do you have a cold or how did you
break your leg.'' And that can't be what Congress intended.
An even more basic question is whether the ADA is intended
to give someone with a sprained ankle the same protection as
somebody who has paraplegia. It is intended to give somebody
with the flu, put that person in the same category with
somebody with breast cancer? In my opinion, that can't be what
Congress intended. So it seems to me the definition of
``disability'' should not be changed, but it is also clear that
courts have excluded individuals who Congress did want to
protect under the law.
Now, a fair reading of the legislative history supports the
proponents' view for the second proposed change, which is that
the law should be read expansively and that the seriousness of
a person's condition should be analyzed as if that person were
not taking medication. Congress wanted to do this to prevent
people from being thrown out of court because they took steps
to alleviate their conditions.
The Supreme Court decided, of course, not to follow the
legislative history. In Sutton v. United Airlines, they
considered whether the vision impairment of the plaintiffs who
wore glasses should be analyzed with or without their glasses,
and decided instead of just carving out an exception for
glasses, they said, no, we are going to look at everyone with
their mitigating measures. And of course, after Sutton, lots of
plaintiffs, as you see in the written materials I have
submitted, were thrown out of court because they took
medication. Is that what Congress intended?
The third change by the act would put the burden of proof
on employers to show that an individual is not qualified. Now,
in the interest of time, I won't get into that right now except
to say that this is simply inconsistent with every other
employment discrimination law.
So it boils down to this. The legislation would restore the
ADA in that an individual's condition should be analyzed
without medication or mitigating measures, but to change the
definition of ``disability'' to cover, literally cover everyone
in America wouldn't be restoring the ADA. It would certainly
lead to a deluge of unintended consequences.
Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Fram follows:]
Prepared Statement of David K. Fram, Esq., Director, ADA & EEO
Services, National Employment Law Institute
It is a pleasure to be here as you consider changes to the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the most important piece of civil
rights legislation of our generation.
It is especially great to be back in this place where I formed
wonderful memories of my teenage years--as both a Congressional Page,
and as an intern for Senator Paul Sarbanes. And what an honor it is to
be in front of this Committee, with representatives from my hometown,
Baltimore (Congressman Sarbanes), and my current home, Long Island
(Congressman Bishop).
My name is David Fram, and I'm the Director of ADA and EEO Services
for the National Employment Law Institute. In this role, I train a wide
range of groups on how to comply with and how to enforce the ADA. These
groups include virtually every federal agency (including the U.S. House
of Representatives and the U.S. Senate), most Fortune 500 companies,
colleges and universities, non-profits, unions, and plaintiffs'
organizations. I have also written a book, Resolving ADA Workplace
Questions, now in its 23rd edition, which analyzes every major ADA case
from the Supreme Court and the federal Courts of Appeals, as well as
any new positions from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Prior to my work with the Institute, I was a Policy Attorney at the
EEOC from 1991 through 1996. In that job, I was part of the ADA
Division, working on EEOC documents interpreting and enforcing the ADA
and the Rehabilitation Act.
A number of employers and employer-oriented organizations expressed
concerns to me about the changes proposed by the ADA Restoration Act.
Because of my experience on both sides of these issues, these groups
have encouraged me to testify concerning my personal concerns on the
proposed legislation. I cannot in all candor, however, tell you that
these groups will necessarily agree with everything I'm about to say.
Before anyone can intelligently discuss those changes, it's
critical to briefly review the most important provisions of the ADA as
it currently exists.
The employment provisions of the ADA accomplish two major goals.
First, the law says that an employer cannot discriminate against a
qualified individual with a disability in, among other things, hiring,
firing, employment terms and conditions, and insurance coverage.
Second, the law says that these non-discrimination provisions require
an employer to provide ``reasonable accommodations'' to otherwise
qualified individuals, so that these individuals can perform the
essential functions of the job.\1\
In addition to these basic provisions, the ADA also prohibits
employers from asking any disability-related questions or requiring
medical examinations of applicants, and allows employers to ask these
questions and require these exams of employees only when these are
considered ``job-related and consistent with business necessity.'' \2\
As you have heard from other witnesses, the law specifically
defines someone with a ``disability'' as an individual who currently
has, has a ``record of,'' or is ``regarded as'' having an
``impairment'' that ``substantially limits'' a ``major life activity.''
\3\ This language was specifically taken from the Rehabilitation Act of
1973.\4\ Courts have interpreted broadly what is considered an
impairment--any physical or mental disorder is an impairment.\5\ So,
this would include a chipped tooth, the flu, or a broken finger. The
reason these conditions would not be considered disabilities is that
they do not ``substantially limit'' a major life activity. In
determining whether an impairment ``substantially limits'' a major life
activity, courts analyze the individual's abilities compared to those
of the average person.\6\ Ever since the ADA came into force, one
important question has been whether to analyze the individual's
condition in a medicated or mitigated state (if s/he medicates or
mitigates), or whether to analyze what the condition would be like
without medication or mitigation. On its face, the statutory language
arguably suggested that an individual should be analyzed with
medications or mitigating measures. However, based on the ADA's
legislative history, the EEOC instructed employers to look at what the
individual's condition would be like without medication or mitigation,
and many federal courts followed this approach.\7\
Indeed, shortly before the Supreme Court weighed in on the issue,
the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals noted the ``most reasonable reading
of the ADA'' was to consider mitigating measures in determining when an
individual had a disability.\8\ But, the court also pointed out that
the EEOC's Guidelines, the legislative history and the majority of
other federal courts provided that an individual's mitigating measures
should not be considered in determining whether an individual had a
disability.\9\ The Fifth Circuit adopted a middle of the road approach
recognizing that while Congress intended that courts should consider
people in their unmitigated state in deciding whether an individual was
disabled, it didn't make sense for courts not to consider some
mitigating measures in situations where a person's condition has been
permanently corrected or ameliorated. In fact, the court held that
serious conditions similar to those mentioned in the legislative
history and EEOC guidelines, such as diabetes, epilepsy, hearing
impairments, etc. would be considered in their unmitigated state.\10\
The Supreme Court, however, held the opposite when it decided Sutton v.
United Airlines,\11\ which I'll talk about shortly.
Once the individual is determined to have a covered disability, the
next question is whether the individual is ``qualified,'' which means
that the individual satisfies the job's background requirements and
that s/he can perform the job's ``essential functions,'' with a
reasonable accommodation if needed.\12\ As with other discrimination
laws, courts use the McDonnell Douglas framework,\13\ requiring the
individual to show as part of his prima facie case that s/he has a
disability and that s/he is qualified. In this regard, the courts have
put the burden of proof on the employer to demonstrate which functions
are essential, and then put the burden on the individual to show that
s/he can do those essential functions.\14\
I would like to address the three major changes proposed by the ADA
Restoration Act: (1) changing the definition of disability to cover all
impairments, regardless of the seriousness of the impairment; (2)
reversing the Supreme Court cases instructing courts to analyze
conditions as controlled with medication or mitigating measures if the
individual uses such measures; and (3) changing the burden of proof to
require an employer to show that an individual is not qualified.
1. Changing the Definition of Disability
The ``ADA Restoration Act'' would change the definition of
disability to cover any physical or mental impairment, and to remove
the requirement that the impairment ``substantially limit'' a major
life activity. This, therefore, does away with the notion that the
impairment has to have some degree of seriousness and some degree of
duration. As a result, a chipped tooth, the flu, and a broken finger
would automatically be covered as disabilities. It also means that
alopecia (having a hair impairment, like mine) would be a covered
disability.
It is simply incorrect to say that this restores the ADA to what it
once was. The statute, on its face, states that the impairment has to
substantially limit a major life activity.\15\ The Rehabilitation Act,
on which the ADA was based, states that the impairment has to
substantially limit a major life activity.\16\ The EEOC's regulations
(and the Appendix to the regulations, and the EEOC's own Compliance
Manual instructions on the definition of disability), all state that
the impairment must substantially limit a major life activity.\17\ In
fact, in my years at the EEOC and in all of my years with the
Institute, I've never heard anyone say that the ADA was meant to cover
people with any impairment. So, it is not accurate to say that this is
a ``restoration'' act. Rather, this would be a new law that is vastly
broader than the ADA.
Would it be good policy to change the law in such a sweeping way? I
understand that the proponents of the bill want to change the ADA so
that the issue becomes whether discrimination has occurred, rather than
focusing on whether an individual's condition is a disability.\18\ The
problem with this view is that the ADA is not like the traditional
discrimination laws. The ADA goes several steps further. As we've
talked about, it requires reasonable accommodation for the individual
with a disability. In fact, as the Supreme Court has noted, the ADA
requires employers to give preferential treatment to individuals with
disabilities. If the proposed changes were enacted, it would mean that
an employer would have to provide reasonable accommodation for the
person with a chipped tooth or the flu. An employer would have to
provide reasonable accommodation for someone with a sprained ankle. An
employer would have to provide reasonable accommodation for someone who
is bald who wants time off to get a hair transplant. This couldn't be
what Congress intended.
In addition, rewriting the definition of ``disability'' would have
detrimental effects in the workplace. Because employers have limited
resources, it means that the person with a sprained ankle could be
competing with the veteran who has no legs for the accessible parking
space. It means that the person with the flu could be competing with
someone with AIDS for the modified schedule. This couldn't be what
Congress intended.
The ADA also covers employer-provided health insurance. What this
means is that disability-based distinctions in health insurance plans
might be illegal.\19\ If the definition of disability were changed to
cover all impairments, employers could be acting illegally if they had
different medical coverage for dental conditions than for other types
of medical conditions. Employers would be acting at their peril if they
denied medications or medical treatment for baldness, because that
would be a disability-based distinction. This couldn't be what Congress
intended.
As I also have mentioned, the ADA prohibits pre-offer questions
likely to disclose an applicant's disability, and it prohibits those
questions of employees unless they are specifically related to the job.
But if the definition of disability is changed to cover all
impairments, that would make it flatly illegal to ask applicants about
any impairments, and to ask employees about any impairments unless
specifically related to the job. This means that if an employee comes
to work with a broken leg and the supervisor says, ``How did you break
your leg?'' the supervisor has engaged in illegal conduct under the
ADA. It also means that if an employee comes to work sneezing and
coughing, and his supervisor says, ``Do you have a cold?'' the
supervisor has engaged in illegal conduct under the ADA. This couldn't
be what Congress intended.
An even more basic question is whether the ADA is intended to give
someone with a sprained ankle the same protections as someone who has
paraplegia? Is the ADA intended to put someone with the flu in the same
category as someone who has breast cancer and is undergoing
chemotherapy and radiation? Is the ADA intended to give someone with a
toothache the same rights as someone who has insulin-dependent
diabetes? This couldn't be what Congress intended.
2. Reversing the Supreme Court Cases on Mitigating Measures
To me, it is clear that the ADA was never intended to cover every
individual with any impairment. But, it also is my view that the
effects of the Sutton decision have excluded individuals whom Congress
wanted to protect under the law. For example, in one recent Court of
Appeals case, a court said that a woman with breast cancer, who had
undergone chemotherapy and radiation, had suffered severe nausea, and
had been unable to care for herself or to work, was not considered
covered under the law.\20\ In other cases, individuals with insulin-
dependent diabetes and epilepsy were not considered covered under the
law even though the legislative history identified those conditions as
impairments which were likely to reach the level of disabilities.
A fair reading of the ADA's legislative history supports the notion
that the law was to be read expansively and that individuals were to be
analyzed in their unmedicated (i.e., unmitigated) state.\21\ This
approach was grounded in the idea that Congress did not want to exclude
people because they took steps to alleviate their conditions. It also
was grounded in the idea that otherwise, individuals would be stuck in
a Catch 22--they might only have disabilities if they did not take
their medications, but they might not be qualified if they did not take
their medications. As I said earlier, the EEOC and most federal courts
followed the legislative history.
The Supreme Court, however, decided not to follow the legislative
history. In Sutton v. United Airlines,\22\ the Supreme Court considered
whether the plaintiffs, who wore glasses, should be analyzed with or
without their glasses in determining whether their vision impairments
were substantially limiting. The Court concluded that individuals
should be analyzed with mitigating measures if they used these
measures. The Supreme Court arguably could have carved out an exception
for glasses (since glasses are so common in our society, and an
individual's condition is analyzed as compared to the average person).
But they chose instead to say that all individuals, regardless of
condition, should be analyzed as mitigated.\23\ After Sutton, many
plaintiffs have not been able to proceed with a disability
discrimination claim because they took medication (even for a serious
condition) or used prostheses.\24\ This result appears to be
inconsistent with legislative intent expressed in legislative history.
3. Changing the Burden of Proof
The ADA Restoration Act also changes the burden of proof in ADA
cases, by removing the plaintiff's responsibility to show that s/he is
qualified for the job. Instead, the Act puts the burden of proof on the
employer to show that the individual is not qualified. This is simply
not consistent with other employment discrimination laws, which use the
McDonnell-Douglas standard, discussed earlier. In addition, from a
practical perspective, it makes sense to require the plaintiff to prove
that s/he is qualified, since that individual has the critical evidence
on this issue. Moreover, the burden of proof has simply not been a
problem under the ADA.
Therefore, to change this burden would make the ADA burden of proof
scheme different from the other EEO laws, and would not make sense from
an evidentiary or practical perspective.
Conclusion
It boils down to this: the legislation would likely only
``restore'' the ADA in the sense that it would require courts to
analyze an individual's disability status without regard to medication
or mitigating measures. But changing the definition of disability to
cover everyone in America would not be ``restoring'' the ADA. In fact,
it would dilute the importance of the law for people who have serious
conditions, and could lead to a deluge of unintended consequences.
endnotes
\1\ 42 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 12101-12213.
\2\ 42 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 12112(d).
\3\ 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101(2).
\4\ 29 U.S.C. Sec. 705(20)(B).
\5\ 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1630.2(h). For example, in Agnew v. Heat
Treating Services of America, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 27884 (6th Cir.
2005)(unpublished), the court noted that a bad back would be an
impairment. Similarly, in Benoit v. Technical Manufacturing Corp., 331
F.3d 166 (1st Cir. 2003), the court noted that back and knee strains,
caused either by the employee's improper lifting techniques or by his
weight gain, were ``impairments.'' In Arrieta-Colon v. Wal-Mart, Inc.,
2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 826 (1st Cir. 2006), the court did not disturb the
jury's finding that the plaintiff's erectile dysfunction, which
required a penile implant (having the side effect of a ``constant semi-
erection''), was an impairment. Likewise, in Sinclair Williams v.
Stark, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 5367 (6th Cir. 2001)(unpublished), the
court noted that the plaintiff's headaches were an impairment. In Cella
v. Villanova University, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 21740 (3d Cir.
2004)(unpublished), the court held that the plaintiff's ``tennis
elbow'' was an impairment under the ADA.
\6\ 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1630.2(j). See Davidson v. Midelfort Clinic,
Ltd., 133 F.3d 499 (7th Cir. 1998)(adopting EEOC's definition of
``substantially limits''). Courts compare the individual's condition to
the average person in order to determine whether the condition is
serious enough. For example, in Collins v. Prudential Investment and
Retirement Services, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 148 (3d Cir.
2005)(unpublished), the court found that the employee's ADHD did not
``substantially limit'' her ability to think, learn, concentrate, and
remember, where she sometimes became distracted from her tasks, had
trouble placing tasks in priority order, and had trouble showing up for
events on time. The court noted that ``many people who are not
suffering from ADHD/ADD must regularly cope with'' such limitations. In
Bowen v. Income Producing Management of Oklahoma, Inc., 202 F.3d 1282
(10th Cir. 2000), the plaintiff, who suffered a brain injury, claimed
that he was substantially limited in learning in light of his memory
loss, inability to concentrate and difficulty performing simple math.
The court found that he was not ``substantially limited'' because he
had ``greater skills and abilities than the average person in
general.'' Similarly, in Wong v. Regents of the University of
California, 410 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2005), the court held that the
plaintiff was not substantially limited in ``learning'' or ``reading''
when compared to the general population. Concerning ``learning,'' the
court noted that the plaintiff had completed the first two years of
medical school with good grades and without any special accommodations.
Concerning reading, the plaintiff claimed that he read very slowly and
did much better when he did not have time constraints. The court stated
that the plaintiff's evidence that he was limited (compared to his own
reading abilities without time limits) was not the relevant issue.
Instead, the court held that he had not presented evidence as to the
``appropriate standard''--comparing himself to ``what is important in
the daily life of most people,'' such as his ability to read
newspapers, government forms, and street signs.
On the other hand, many plaintiffs have shown that, compared to the
average person, their impairments were serious enough to be
substantially limiting. For example, in Jenkins v. Cleco Power LLC, 487
F.3d 309 (5th Cir. 2007), the court held that where the employee could,
with intermittent breaks, sit only for up to three hours per day, he
was substantially limited in sitting. In Heiko v. Colombo Savings Bank,
F.S.B., 434 F.3d 249 (4th Cir. 2006), the court held that the
plaintiff, who had kidney failure, was ``substantially limited'' in
eliminating waste because he ``was required to spend at least four
hours, three days a week undergoing dialysis in order to remove waste
from his body.'' In Battle v. UPS, Inc., 438 F.3d 856 (8th Cir. 2006),
the court held that the plaintiff may have been substantially limited
in performing cognitive functions where there was testimony that he
``thinks and concentrates at a laborious rate,'' ``has to spend
significant extra time working on projects,'' ``cannot think and
concentrate about matters unrelated to work,'' and, therefore, cannot
make ``household or financial decisions, or discipline[] his children,
because he does not have the ability to deal with extraneous or
unexpected issues, conflicts, or demands outside of work.'' In EEOC v.
Sears, 417 F.3d 789 (7th Cir. 2005), the court held that where the
plaintiff could not ``walk the equivalent of one city block without her
right leg and feet becoming numb,'' she could be substantially limited
in walking.
\7\ Many courts stated that the effects of medication or prosthetic
devices were irrelevant in determining whether someone's impairment
substantially limits a major life activity. See, e.g., Arnold v. United
Parcel Service, Inc., 135 F.3d 1089 (1st Cir. 1998)(diabetes); Taylor
v. Phoenixville School District, 174 F.3d 142 (3rd Cir. 1999)(mental
disability)(decision vacated); Washington v. HCA Health Services of
Texas, 152 F.3d 464 (5th Cir. 1998)(Adult Still Disease); Baert v.
Euclid Beverage, Ltd., 149 F.3d 626 (7th Cir. 1998)(diabetes); Doane v.
City of Omaha, 115 F.3d 624 (8th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct.
693 (1998)(monocular vision); Holihan v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 87 F.3d
362 (9th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 1349 (1997); Harris v.
H&W Contracting Co., 102 F.3d 516 (11th Cir. 1996)(Graves disease).
\8\ Washington v. HCA Health Services of Texas, Inc., 152 F.3d 464,
469 (5th Cir. 1998) (emphasis in original).
\9\ Id. at 469-471.
\10\ Id. at 470-71.
\11\ 527 U.S. 471, 119 S.Ct. 2139 (1999).
\12\ 42 U.S.C. 12111(8); 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1630.2(m).
\13\ McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).
\14\ For example, in Bates v. UPS, Inc., 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 29870
(9th Cir. 2007), the court noted that the employer must ``put forth
evidence establishing'' which functions are essential (because this
information ``lies uniquely with the employer''), and the employee
``bears the ultimate burden of persuading the fact finder that he can
perform the job's essential functions.'' Similarly, in Fenney v.
Dakota, Minnesota & Railroad Co., 327 F.3d 707 (8th Cir. 2003), the
court noted that although ``the plaintiff retains the ultimate burden
of proving that he is a qualified individual,'' the employer must show
which functions are essential (if that issue is disputed). In EEOC v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 477 F.3d 561 (8th Cir. 2007), the court noted
that the employer has the burden of proving which functions are
essential when it disputes the plaintiff's claim that he is qualified.
However, as noted above, the individual bears the burden of proving
that s/he can perform the essential job functions. For example, in
Hammel v. Eau Galle Cheese Factory, 407 F.3d 852 (7th Cir. 2005), the
court held that the plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that he
is capable of performing the essential functions of the job. In this
case, the court held that the plaintiff could not make this showing,
where his performance had been deficient in many respects. Similarly,
in Breitfelder v. Leis, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 21821 (6th Cir.
2005)(unpublished), the court held that the plaintiff had the ``burden
of showing he could perform the essential tasks'' of the job.
\15\ 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101(2).
\16\ 29 U.S.C. Sec. 705(20)(B).
\17\ 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1630.2(g). Appendix to Regulations, Compliance
Manual Section 902: Definition of the Term Disability, March, 1995.
\18\ See Testimony of Chai Feldblum before the Subcommittee on the
Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties of the Committee on the
Judiciary, United States House of Representatives (10/4/07) at p. 17.
\19\ See EEOC Interim Enforcement Guidance on the Application of
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 to Disability-based
Distinctions in Employer Provided Health Insurance June, 1993.
\20\ Garrett v. University of Alabama, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 26476
(11th Cir. 2007).
\21\ H.R. REP. NO. 101-485, pt. 2, at 52 (1990); see also H.R. REP.
NO. 101-485, pt. 3, at 28-29 (1990); S. REP. NO. 101-116 at 23 (1989).
\22\ 527 U.S. 471, 119 S.Ct. 2139 (1999).
\23\ The Sutton case was decided along with Murphy v. United Parcel
Service, 527 U.S. 516, 119 S.Ct. 2133 (1999) and Albertsons, Inc. v.
Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. 555, 119 S.Ct. 2162 (1999). These three cases are
commonly referred to as the Sutton triology, and stand for the
proposition that individuals should be analyzed as they are, not what
they might or could be. For example, in Albertson's, a monocular vision
case, the Supreme Court stated that ``people with monocular vision
`ordinarily' will meet the Act's definition of disability.'' However,
the Court noted that in determining whether an individual's monocular
vision is ``substantially limiting,'' it will analyze the individual's
ability with any behavioral modifications that the individual has
undertaken to compensate for his impairment.
\24\ For example, in Darwin v. Nicholson, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 8153
(11th Cir. 2007)(unpublished), the court held that the plaintiff's
hearing impairment was not a disability because, with his hearing aids,
he was not substantially limited in hearing as compared with ``the
general populace.'' In Knapp v. City of Columbus, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS
17081 (6th Cir. 2006)(unpublished), a class action, the court held that
the plaintiffs' ADHD did not substantially limit their major life
activity of learning where it was admittedly controlled with Ritalin.
In Greathouse v. Westfall, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 27882 (6th Cir.
2006)(unpublished), the court held that the plaintiff was not
substantially limited in sleeping where he admittedly slept well with
the use of medication. In Nasser v. City of Columbus, 2004 U.S. App.
LEXIS 4737 (6th Cir. 2004)(unpublished), the court held that the
plaintiff's back impairment was not a disability because, in part, ``he
relieved his back pain through exercises and medicine.'' Similarly, in
Mancini v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 8213 (9th
Cir. 2004)(unpublished), the court held that the plaintiff's epilepsy
was not a disability because ``the manifestations of his epilepsy,
i.e., the seizures, are `totally controlled' through the consistent use
of medication.'' In Collins v. Prudential Investment and Retirement
Services, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 148 (3d Cir. 2005)(unpublished), the
court noted that the employee's ADHD might not be a disability where
the condition was corrected with medication. The court stated that the
mitigating measure need not ``constitute a cure.'' In Manz v. County of
Suffolk, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 3361 (2d Cir. 2003)(unpublished), the
court found that the plaintiff's vision impairments were not a
disability because he used very strong glasses which allowed him to see
sufficiently well. Likewise, in Casey v. Kwik Trip, Inc., 2004 U.S.
App. LEXIS 22569 (7th Cir. 2004)(unpublished), the court found that the
plaintiff was not substantially limited in performing household chores
where she admitted that she performs these chores by using adaptive
measures, such as using both hands or certain tools or equipment (such
as an electric can opener) to grip and manipulate objects. In Carr v.
Publix Super Markets, Inc., 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 2845 (11th Cir.
2006)(unpublished), the court held that the employee's impaired arm did
not substantially limit his major life activities because he had
learned to compensate through the use of his other arm. Similarly, in
Didier v. Schwan Food Co., 465 F.3d 838 (8th Cir. 2006), the court held
that despite his hand injury, the employee was not substantially
limited in performing manual tasks and caring for himself. The court
noted that although the employee ``has difficulty with shaving and
other grooming activities, he learned to do these things left-handed.''
Interestingly, in Walton v. U.S. Marshals Service, 492 F.3d 998 (9th
Cir. 2007), the court held mitigating measures includes not only
``measures undertaken with artificial aids, like medications and
devices,'' but also ``measures undertaken, whether consciously or not,
with the body's own systems.'' In this case, the court held that the
plaintiff's inability to ``localize sound'' was mitigated by her own
``visual localization.'' In Berry v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 490 F.3d 1211
(10th Cir. 2007), the court held that the plaintiff was not
substantially limited in her major life activities since she can
perform her activities ``given sufficient rest,'' she can ``walk with
the aid of a cane,'' and she ``can treat her symptoms with
medication.'' Using curious legal reasoning, the court also held that
the plaintiff's ``family's assistance with the household chores'' can
be considered in determining whether she is substantially limited ``as
that is part of daily living in most families.''
In Orr v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 297 F.3d 720 (8th Cir. 2002), the
court found that the plaintiff did not show that his diabetes, as
controlled with insulin, substantially limited his major life
activities. The court noted that it would not analyze ``what would or
could occur if Orr failed to treat his diabetes or how his diabetes
might develop in the future. In Sinclair Williams v. Stark, 2001 U.S.
App. LEXIS 5367 (6th Cir. 2001)(unpublished) and Hill v. Kansas City
Area Transportation Authority, 181 F.3d 891 (8th Cir. 1999), the courts
found that the employees' hypertension was not a disability because
they controlled the condition with medications such that it did not
substantially limit their major life activities. In Cotter v. Ajilon
Services, Inc., 287 F.3d 593 (6th Cir. 2002), the court held that the
individual's colitis ``must be viewed in its medicated--and thus
substantially controlled--state.'' Likewise, in Hein v. All America
Plywood Co., 232 F.3d 482 (6th Cir. 2000), the court held that the
plaintiff's hypertension, as medicated, was not a disability because he
functioned ``normally'' and had ``no problems `whatsoever' '' (quoting
the plaintiff). In this case, the plaintiff, a truck driver, had asked
the court to analyze his unmedicated condition because he was fired for
refusing to take a driving assignment that he claimed would prevent him
from getting a refill of his medication. The court concluded that he
could have obtained the refill if he had been more diligent. In Spades
v. City of Walnut Ridge, 186 F.3d 897 (8th Cir. 1999), the court held
that the employee's depression was not a disability since he conceded
that he functioned well with his medications. Similarly, in EEOC v.
R.J. Gallagher Co., 181 F.3d 645 (5th Cir. 1999), the court noted that
it did ``not doubt'' that the plaintiff's condition, ``if left
untreated, would affect the full panorama of life activities, and
indeed would likely result in an untimely death.'' Nonetheless, the
court concluded that ``the predicted effects of the impairment in its
untreated state for the purposes of considering whether a major life
activity has been affected by a physical or mental impairment has,
however, been foreclosed'' by the Supreme Court. In Muller v. Costello,
187 F.3d 298 (2d Cir. 1999), the court concluded that the plaintiff's
asthma did not substantially limit his ability to breathe, after taking
into account his inhalers and other medications. Similarly, in Ivy v.
Jones, 192 F.3d 514 (5th Cir. 1999), the court held that whether the
plaintiff's hearing impairment ``substantially limited'' her hearing
should be determined as corrected by her hearing aids. The court noted
that the plaintiff's hearing might not be substantially limited in
light of the evidence showing that her hearing was ``corrected to 92%
with one hearing aid and 96% with two hearing aids.''
______
Mr. Andrews. Mr. Fram, thank you very much for your
thoughtful testimony.
Dr. Burgdorf, we appreciate your contribution to this law
from the beginning, and we are happy that you are with us
today.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT L. BURGDORF, PROFESSOR OF LAW, UNIVERSITY
OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Mr. Burgdorf. Thank you.
Chairman Andrews, Ranking Member McKeon, members of the
committee, it is an honor and it is a solemn responsibility for
me to have this opportunity to testify before the committee. I
am humbled somewhat by the thought that there are many, many,
many Mr. McClures in America, many people who were told by the
Congress, were told by the president, were told by many of us
who teach about disability rights law, that henceforth they
would be protected from discrimination.
Today, they find out--not today literally--in recent years
they have found out that isn't true anymore. Many people who
were clearly protected by the ADA when it was enacted, in
everyone's eyes that spoke at that time, find out when they are
told by a court, you may have a disability, but it is not a
serious enough disability for you to be protected by the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
To put it as simply as I can, the courts have made a royal
mess of the definition of ``disability'' in the ADA. In trying
to figure out how to communicate in a simple fashion and not in
my typical law professor fashion, the complex mess that has
been made of the Americans with Disabilities Act, I prepared a
little chart that I have attached as appendix B to my
testimony. I have asked that copies be made available if you
would rather just take a look at it, rather than flipping
through my testimony.
Mr. Andrews. The members do have copies of that.
Mr. Burgdorf. Okay, they have that. On the left column is
simply what Congress said, either in statutory language or in
multiple, multiple expostulations in the congressional
committee reports. The right side is where we have gotten to
now. In each of these instances, the courts have basically
rewritten the definition of ``disability.'' The things that
Congress said, the very language of the statute, has been
interpreted in a way that now means something totally
different.
Some of those things have to do with just narrow or broad
construction. Some of them have to do with mitigating measures.
But they have to do with a lot of other things that the court
has taken the term ``substantial limitation'' to a major life
activity and turned it into a crushing burden, an impossible
burden for many people with disabilities to meet. Or if they
can, they have to do ridiculous things like prove what their
sex life is like, prove things that have nothing to do with the
fact that they were denied employment or terminated from
employment.
I also put together as another appendix, an appendix A,
just a list of cases. There are many of these floating around
now. It is an endless task. This list could be hundreds of
cases of particular conditions that people had and went to the
courts to say, `` I have been discriminated against,'' and the
court said ``you can't prove that you have a serious enough
condition to be protected.'' That is appendix A.
It is all kinds of conditions--muscular dystrophy, multiple
sclerosis, breast cancer, amputation, loss of use of an eye,
loss of use of an arm. It is just many things that we were all
sure were protected.
In the remainder of my time, I would like to begin to
address, and I am not sure I can completely do so,
Representative McKeon's concerns about unintended consequences.
That is the last thing that we want to have happen. The
Restoration Act is based in large part upon a report by the
National Council on Disability called Righting the ADA. It is
on the NCD websites and copies have been provided to members of
Congress. I was lucky enough to get to be the principal author
for the council of that report.
The council represents--it is 15 people appointed by
President Bush, and they really are concerned with what is
happening to the Americans with Disabilities Act. This report
goes at great length to describing the problems, but also
trying to suggest the solutions. Let me just address a couple
of things, and if there are questions about other unintended
consequences, I would be happy to take those one.
The first is that this represents an expansion. Well, it
doesn't represent an expansion if one understands what the
third prong of the ADA said and what Congress and the courts to
this time had said the third prong is, which is regarded as
what having a disability means. I quoted in my testimony from
language from this committee's report that says very clearly
that if a person is discriminated against because of a covered
entities negative attitudes toward the person's impairments,
they are treated as having a disability and are covered under
the third prong.
Also, your report and the reports of all the committees
that discussed the definition quoted from the leading precedent
at the time, the Supreme Court's decision in the Arline case,
that such an impairment might not diminish a person's physical
or mental abilities, but could nevertheless substantially limit
that person's ability to work as a result of the negative
reaction of others to that impairment. People could have minor
impairments. They could have no impairment.
The last thing I want to say is that--no, there are two
things actually.
Mr. Andrews. If I could ask you to quickly summarize so we
can get to questions.
Mr. Burgdorf. Okay. I am over time. Okay. I apologize. I
would love to take on the ``reasonable accommodation'' issue
and also to talk about some of what the court had to say.
[The statement of Mr. Burgdorf follows:]
Prepared Statement of Robert L. Burgdorf, Jr., Professor of Law,
University of the District of Columbia
Introduction
In November 1989, the Committee on Education and Labor, by a vote
of 35-0, approved and reported out the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA). The Committee's action was a significant step in the process by
which Congress and the George H.W. Bush Administration realized the
momentous and long-needed objective of according people with
disabilities protection from discrimination--the right to be treated
equally and to challenge unfair treatment against them--by enacting the
ADA. In this legislation, the two elected branches of government made a
compact with the American people that America would no longer tolerate
discrimination on the basis of disability, and if people encountered
such discrimination they could challenge it in court. Unfortunately,
the judiciary--the unelected branch--has largely taken away protection
of the ADA and access to the courts to enforce it by drastically and
aggressively limiting the coverage of the ADA. Today, large numbers of
people with disabilities around the country find that they no longer
have the rights the Congress and the President gave them.
I have been working on a law review article addressing
discrimination against people with cancer; in doing research for that
article, I found considerable statistical and anecdotal information
documenting serious discrimination directed at people who currently
have cancer and those who have previously been treated for cancer.
Estimates of the prevalence of such discrimination in the workplace
vary all over the board, from 5% to 90%, but considering that over 10
million people living in the United States currently have cancer or
have been treated for cancer, including over two million who have been
treated for breast cancer, and that about 40% of them are of working
age, even the most conservative estimates mean that hundreds of
thousands of Americans with cancer or a history of cancer have been
discriminated against by their employers.
Many workers facing such discrimination have sought to assert their
rights under the ADA. All too often, however, the courts' restrictive
interpretations of the Act's coverage have resulted in judicial rulings
that a worker's cancer is not a disability, much to the sad surprise of
those who drafted and enacted the legislation. This means that hundreds
of thousands of people who have had to battle a life-threatening
disease and then encountered unfair and unnecessary discrimination may
have no recourse under a law that was manifestly intended to protect
them. Even those who do manage to satisfy the stringent criteria for
disability can only do so by making obviously off-the-point and often
embarrassing and painful showings of how their sexual activities or
ability to perform personal self care or other unrelated activities are
severely limited.
The article I am working on focuses on cancer, but the same
situation applies to many, perhaps most, other types of disabilities.
Even a cursory review of the cases decided under the ADA reveals a
plethora of court decisions in which people with conditions everyone
thought were covered under the law when it was enacted have had their
lawsuits thrown out of court based on technical, harshly narrow
interpretations of what a ``disability'' is. To provide a small, but
representative, sampling of such cases, I have attached a list of
decisions in which plaintiffs with significant impairments were unable
to convince a court that their conditions constituted disabilities
under the ADA as Appendix A to this testimony. Statistical studies
pretty consistently indicate that complainants prevail in fewer than
one-out-of-ten ADA Title I (employment) complaints. One of the studies
found that courts ruled that the plaintiff had a disability in only six
percent of the cases.\1\ Ludicrously, employers who take drastic steps,
such as termination or demotion, against employees because of their
conditions can successfully contend that the conditions are not serious
enough to constitute a disability.
For these reasons, it is both an honor and a solemn responsibility
for me to have this opportunity to submit comments to the Committee. I
am pleased to be a part of this panel of distinguished witnesses,
including Andrew Imparato whom I have worked with and admired for many
years. In my 19 years as Professor of Law at the University of the
District of Columbia, David A. Clarke School of Law, I initially taught
the School's Constitutional Law courses, and for many years now have
directed a clinical program in legislation--the Legislation Clinic. For
over 35 years, however, my particular area of legal research and
expertise has been the rights of people with disabilities. During my
career, I have had the good fortune to be presented with some wonderful
opportunities to contribute to the advancement of such rights. Chief
among these was working for the National Council on Disability during
the Administration of George H.W. Bush to develop the concept of an
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and then to craft the Council's
original version of the ADA. This is the version that Representative
Tony Coelho and Senator Lowell Weicker had the vision and valor to
introduce in the 100th Congress in 1988.
I subsequently worked with Members of Congress and their staffs,
legal experts, and representatives of affected industries to revise the
ADA bill for introduction in the 101st Congress in 1989. After the ADA
was enacted in 1990, I had the opportunity to do some scholarly
writing, including a hefty legal treatise and several law review
articles, that discussed the provisions of the ADA and the court
decisions that started to arise under it. I also had occasion to
continue to work with the National Council on Disability (NCD) in
monitoring the case law and federal enforcement efforts regarding the
ADA. At the Council's request, I developed a summary of the Supreme
Court's ADA decisions and their implications that is posted on the NCD
website at http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2002/supremecourt--
ada.htm.
During the Administration of George W. Bush, NCD focused on the
digression of some of the Supreme Court's decisions from the intent and
spirit of the ADA, and decided to undertake an in-depth study of the
impact of these decisions, consistent with NCD's statutory obligation
to ``gather information about the implementation, effectiveness, and
impact of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.'' \2\ The
Council commissioned a series of policy documents discussing specific
topics raised by problematic Supreme Court ADA decisions; 19 such topic
papers have been issued to date. They are posted on the NCD website
under the title Policy Brief Series: Righting the ADA Papers at http://
www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2003/policybrief.htm.
Based upon information uncovered in the development of these topic
papers, NCD became convinced that corrective legislative action is
called for, and accorded me the high honor of asking me to pull
together the various strands and issues discussed in the individual
topic papers and to draft a unified legislative proposal for getting
the ADA back on track. The result, a report titled Righting the ADA,
was issued in December of 2004. It provides an analysis of problematic
Court rulings, describes the resulting impact on people with
disabilities, and offers legislative proposals designed to restore the
ADA to its original intent. Out of various legislative proposals
discussed in the report, NCD chose to consolidate its preferred
solutions to the problems created by judicial misinterpretation of the
ADA into a single draft bill--the ADA Restoration Act.
NCD has sent copies of the Righting the ADA report to Congress,
additional copies are available from the National Council, and the
report is posted on the NCD website at http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/
publications/2004/righting--ada.htm. For convenience, however, I am
including as the final section of my observations the Executive Summary
of the Righting the ADA report, which includes a Section-by-Section
Summary and the text of the Council's ADA Restoration Act proposal. I
will only add a caution that the full text of the report contains
considerable materials clarifying, explaining, and amplifying the
impact of the ADA decisions of the Supreme Court and I strongly advise
those interested in the proposals to read the full rationale that
supports them. A considerable portion of my testimony is derived more
or less directly from the Righting the ADA report, the series of topic
papers that led up to it, and other NCD reports that I helped develop.
In my testimony, I will describe some of the background of the
enactment of the ADA and the positive impacts that it has had. I will
then discuss some of the problematic judicial decisions, particularly
those of the United States Supreme Court, that have inhibited the
achievement of some the legislation's central objectives, including the
unexpected restrictive court interpretations of the definition of
``disability'' in the Act. My testimony will outline how the courts
have missed the boat as to some of the central premises of the ADA. I
will summarize the efforts of the National Council on Disability to get
the ADA back on track, culminating in its Righting the ADA report that
contained an ADA Restoration Act proposal. Finally, I will examine H.R.
3195, derived in part from the NCD proposal, and discuss the extent to
which it achieves the goal of undoing the damage done by judicial
restrictions on the coverage of the ADA.
Broad bipartisan support
President George H.W. Bush called July 26, 1990, ``an incredible
day * * * an immensely important day,'' for on that date he signed into
law the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In his remarks at the
signing ceremony, the President described the Act as an ``historic new
civil rights Act, * * * the world's first comprehensive declaration of
equality for people with disabilities.'' He added that ``[w]ith today's
signing of the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act, every man,
woman, and child with a disability can now pass through once-closed
doors into a bright new era of equality, independence and freedom.'' He
also noted that ``my administration and the Congress have carefully
crafted this Act.''
A rarity about the ADA was that it was an important piece of
legislation that almost everyone supported. The votes in Congress to
pass the ADA were overwhelmingly in favor of passage. The Senate passed
its version of the ADA bill by a vote of 76 to 8; the House of
Representatives passed its bill 403 to 20. After differences were
ironed out in conference, the House approved the final version of the
bill by a vote of 377 to 28, and the Senate followed suit, adopting the
final ADA bill by the lopsided margin of 91 to 6. Congressional
committees that considered the ADA were equally united in their backing
of the legislation. Two of the five committees--the Senate Labor and
Human Resources Committee and the House Committee on Education and
Labor--adopted ADA bills unanimously. The Subcommittee on Civil and
Constitutional Rights favorably reported the bill by a recorded vote of
7-1, and the House Judiciary Committee followed suit by a recorded vote
of 32-3. None of the formal up-or-down committee votes on reporting out
the ADA, nor any of the floor votes on passage of the legislation, had
less than a 90 percent majority in favor of the ADA bills.
Such overwhelming approval of a measure--with at least 9 out of 10
voting for it--obviously can occur only if it has both Republican and
Democratic support. The ADA originated, as Senator Robert Dole, the
Senate minority leader emphasized, ``with an initiative of the National
Council on Disability, an independent federal body composed of 15
members appointed by President Reagan and charged with reviewing all
laws, programs, and policies of the Federal Government affecting
individuals with disabilities.'' Proposed by Reagan appointees,
initially sponsored by a Republican in the Senate (Senator Lowell
Weicker) and a Democrat in the House of Representatives (Representative
Tony Coelho), passed by a Democrat-controlled Senate and House of
Representatives, and supported and signed by President George H.W.
Bush, the ADA was a model of bipartisanship.
Before the ADA was reintroduced in the 101st Congress, ADA
advocates in Congress determined that, to pass an effective and
enforceable law, they needed the support of the administration and
members of Congress from both major political parties. As Congressman
Coelho would later report, ``If it had become a Democratic bill, [the
ADA] would have lost. * * * It had to be bipartisan.'' As the ADA
passed the Senate, Senator Dole called it ``a good example of
bipartisanship in action.'' Likewise, President George H.W. Bush
credited the success of the ADA to the fact that members of Congress,
``on both sides of the political aisle'' agreed to ``put politics
aside'' to ``do something decent, something right.'' He credited the
ADA's passage to ``a coalition in the finest spirit. A joining of
Democrats and Republicans. Of the Legislative and the Executive
Branches. Of federal and state agencies. Of public officials and
private citizens. Of people with disabilities and without.''
Members of both political parties participated in cooperative
meetings to craft compromise provisions and revise problematic language
in the bills. Republican Representative Steve Bartlett described
meetings with the leading House advocate for the ADA, Democrat Steny
Hoyer, as ``the most productive and satisfying legislative negotiations
that I had ever been involved with.''
In addition to congressional dialogue and bargaining, a key factor
in obtaining bipartisan backing and ultimately passing the ADA was the
unwavering support for the legislation by President George H.W. Bush
and his administration. While he was Vice President, Mr. Bush had
pledged that he would promote a civil rights act for people with
disabilities. Two days before his inauguration as President, Mr. Bush
declared, ``I said during the campaign that disabled people have been
excluded for far too long from the mainstream of American life. * * *
One step that I have discussed will be action on the Americans with
Disabilities Act in order, in simple fairness, to provide the disabled
with the same rights afforded others, afforded other minorities.''
Early in the Senate hearings on the ADA, Senator Tom Harkin, a
Democrat, made a remarkable statement crediting President George H.W.
Bush's public remarks in favor of rights for people with disabilities:
[W]e have had strong, strong statements made by President Bush--no
President of the United States, Republican or Democrat, has ever said
the things about disabled Americans that George Bush has said. No
President, including the President who was in a wheelchair, Franklin
Roosevelt.
Senator Harkin concluded that ``this bodes well'' and meant that
``we can work together with the administration, [on] both sides of the
aisle * * *'' on the ADA.
Attorney General Dick Thornburgh formally announced the Bush
administration's support for the ADA during Senate hearings on the
legislation. He declared, ``[w]e at the Justice Department
wholeheartedly share [the ADA's] goals and commit ourselves, along with
the President and the rest of his administration to a bipartisan effort
to enact comprehensive legislation attacking discrimination in
employment, public services, transportation, public accommodations, and
telecommunications.'' He added, in regard to the ADA bill, that ``[o]ne
of its most impressive strengths is its comprehensive character'' that
was consistent with President George H.W. Bush's commitment to ensuring
people with disabilities' ``full participation in and access to all
aspects of society.'' After Administration and Senate advocates ironed
out differences on specific provisions, the Administration's express
endorsement of the legislation led to a unanimous Senate Committee vote
to report the bill out of committee, and to more than 60 Senators
signing on as cosponsors. It also set the stage for favorable House
action and final passage of the ADA.
As the ADA passed the Senate, Senator Dole praised President George
H.W. Bush for his leadership on the legislation, and declared that
``[w]e would not be here today without the support of the President.''
The senator credited a list of administration officials, including
Chief of Staff John Sununu and Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, whose
efforts contributed to the passage of the ADA. He also appended to his
remarks a New York Times opinion-editorial piece about the ADA written
by James S. Brady, who had been President Reagan's Press Secretary. Mr.
Brady wrote:
As a Republican and a fiscal conservative, I am proud that this
bill was developed by 15 Republicans appointed to the National Council
on Disability by President Reagan. Many years ago, a Republican
President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, urged that people with disabilities
become taxpayers and consumers instead of being dependent upon costly
federal benefits. The [ADA] grows out of that conservative philosophy.
NCD has observed:
More than any other single player, the role of President Bush
cannot be overestimated. The ADA would have made little headway were it
not for the early and consistent support from the nation's highest
office. * * * The president's support brought people to the table to
work out a bipartisan compromise bill that could obtain the support of
the business community as well as that of the disability community.\3\
Acclaim for the ADA came from many other sources. Senator Dole
called the ADA ``landmark legislation'' that would ``bring quality to
the lives of millions of Americans who have not had quality in the
past.'' Senator Hatch declared the ADA was ``historic legislation''
whose passage was ``a major achievement'' demonstrating that ``in this
great country of freedom, * * * we will go to the farthest lengths to
make sure that everyone has equality and that everyone has a chance in
this society.'' The executive director of the Leadership Conference on
Civil Rights described the ADA as ``the most comprehensive civil rights
measure in the past two-and-a-half decades.'' Senator Edward M. Kennedy
termed the legislation a ``bill of rights'' and ``an emancipation
proclamation'' for people with disabilities. The late Justin Dart, who
occupied disability policy positions in the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton
administrations, called the ADA ``a landmark commandment of fundamental
human morality.''
Backing by subsequent Presidents
In 2000, President Bill Clinton proclaimed July as ``The Spirit of
the ADA Month'' and declared:
The enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act 10 years ago
this month signaled a transformation in our Nation's public policies
toward people with disabilities. America is now a dramatically
different--and better--country because of the ADA.
In addition to citing past accomplishments and pending initiatives
his administration was pursuing to further the implementation of the
ADA, President Clinton added, ``Vice President Gore and I are proud to
join in the celebration and to renew our own pledge to help advance the
cause of disability rights.'' For his part, Vice President Al Gore
observed, ``We know we can't just pass a few laws and change attitudes
overnight. But day by day, person by person, we can make a difference.
Together, let's not just complete the work of the ADA--let's say to the
whole world: this is one country that knows we don't have a person to
waste, and we're moving into the next century--together.'' \4\
Bipartisan support and presidential commitment to the ADA have
continued. President George W. Bush endorsed the Act and, in February
2001, issued his ``New Freedom Initiative,'' committing his
administration to ensuring the rights and inclusion of people with
disabilities in all aspects of American life. On June 18, 2001,
President Bush issued Executive Order No. 13217, declaring the
commitment of the United States to community-based alternatives for
individuals with disabilities. On the twelfth anniversary of the
signing of the ADA, July 26, 2002, the President proclaimed the ADA to
be ``one of the most compassionate and successful civil rights laws in
American history.'' \5\ The White House also declared that ``[t]he
administration is committed to the full enforcement of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.'' President Bush asserted a clear continuity
between his commitment to the ADA and that of his father:
[W]hen my father signed the ADA into law in 1990, he said, ``We
must not and will not rest until every man and woman with a dream has
the means to achieve it.'' Today we renew that commitment, and we
continue to work for an America where individuals are celebrated for
their abilities, not judged by their disabilities.
Will of the people
In enacting the ADA and in seeking its vigorous enforcement, the
elected branches of the Federal Government--the Congress and the
President--have carried out the will of the American people. A large
majority of the public reports that it favors the ADA. A 2002 Harris
Poll found that, of the 77 percent of Americans who said they were
aware of the ADA, an overwhelming percentage (93 percent) reported that
they ``approve of and support it.'' The ADA is supported by most of the
business sector. A Harris Poll of business executives in 1995, for
example, showed that 90 percent of the executives surveyed said that
they supported the ADA.
In the face of negative media reports on the ADA (often misleading
and sometimes flatly inaccurate), most Americans are still highly
favorably disposed to the Act. They have had experience with the
realities of the ADA in their communities and workplaces, and have seen
how people have benefited from it. They have noticed people with
visible disabilities at stores, malls, theaters, stadiums, and museums.
They have seen the ramps, accessible bathrooms, disabled parking
spaces, and other accessibility features that the ADA has engendered.
They encounter people who use wheelchairs now able to go to department
stores, fast food places, and government offices. They know that the
son of their neighbors is now living comfortably in an apartment in the
neighborhood with appropriate support services instead of in an
institutional setting. They are aware that sign language interpreters
now are routinely present at their county council meetings. In these
and countless other ways, they have seen the ADA in action, and they
approve.
Impact of the ADA
In a variety of ways, the ADA has lived up to the high hopes that
accompanied its passage. The provisions of the ADA that address
architectural, transportation, and communication accessibility have
changed the face of American society in numerous concrete ways. A vast
number of buildings and other structures have been affected by
provisions of the ADA that make it illegal to design or construct any
new place of public accommodation or other commercial facility without
making it readily accessible to and usable by people with disabilities,
or to alter such a facility without incorporating accessibility
features. The ADA's mass transit provisions ended decades of
disagreements and controversy regarding many of the issues that
determined exactly what is required of public transportation systems to
avoid discriminating on the basis of disability. The ADA contains
detailed provisions describing requirements for operators of bus, rail,
and other public transportation systems, and intercity and commuter
rail systems. Although implementation has been far from perfect and ADA
provisions do not answer all the questions, much progress in
transportation accessibility has been made. The ADA's employment
provisions have dramatically affected hiring practices by barring
invasive preemployment questionnaires and disability inquiries and the
misuse of preemployment physical information. These provisions also
have made job accommodations for workers with disabilities more common
than they were before the ADA was enacted. The ADA's telecommunications
provisions have resulted in the establishment of a nationwide system of
relay services, which permit the use of telephone services by those
with hearing or speech impairments, and a closed captioning requirement
for the verbal content of all federally funded television public
service announcements.
Other provisions of Title II of the ADA (covering state and local
governments) and Title III (covering public accommodations) have
eliminated many discriminatory practices by private businesses and
government agencies. The ADA has had a particularly strong impact in
promoting the development of community residential, treatment, and care
services in lieu of unnecessarily segregated large state institutions
and nursing homes. The Act provided the impetus for President George W.
Bush's ``New Freedom Initiative,'' issued in February 2001, committing
his administration to assuring the rights and inclusion of people with
disabilities in all aspects of American life; and for Executive Order
No. 13217, issued on June 18, 2001, declaring the commitment of the
United States to community-based alternatives for people with
disabilities.
At the ADA signing ceremony, the first President Bush declared that
other countries, including Sweden, Japan, the Soviet Union, and each of
the 12 member nations of the European Economic Community, had announced
their desire to enact similar legislation. In the years since its
enactment, numerous other countries have been inspired by the ADA to
seek legislation in their own jurisdictions to prohibit discrimination
on the basis of disability. These countries have looked to the ADA, if
not as a model, at least as a touchstone in crafting their own
legislative proposals.
In 1988, while the original ADA bills were pending before Congress,
the Presidential Commission on the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)
Epidemic endorsed the legislation and recommended that the ADA should
serve as a vehicle for protecting from discrimination people with HIV
infection. The ADA has proved to be the principal civil rights law
protecting people with HIV from the sometimes egregious discriminatory
actions directed at them.
In a broader sense, the ADA has, as the Council has observed in a
report issued in 2000, ``begun to transform the social fabric of our
nation:''
It has brought the principle of disability civil rights into the
mainstream of public policy. The law, coupled with the disability
rights movement that produced a climate where such legislation could be
enacted, has impacted fundamentally the way Americans perceive
disability. The placement of disability discrimination on a par with
race or gender discrimination exposed the common experiences of
prejudice and segregation and provided clear rationale for the
elimination of disability discrimination in this country. The ADA has
become a symbol, internationally, of the promise of human and civil
rights, and a blueprint for policy development in other countries. It
has changed permanently the architectural and telecommunications
landscape of the United States. It has created increased recognition
and understanding of the manner in which the physical and social
environment can pose discriminatory barriers to people with
disabilities. It is a vehicle through which people with disabilities
have made their political influence felt, and it continues to be a
unifying focus for the disability rights movement.\6\
This is not to ignore the fact that there are huge gaps in
enforcement of the ADA's requirements or that some covered entities
have taken an I-won't-do-anything-until-I'm-sued attitude toward the
obligations imposed by the law. Indeed, the Promises to Keep report,
from which the preceding quotations were taken, described a variety of
problems and weaknesses in federal enforcement of the ADA and presented
recommendations for remedying such deficiencies.
Numerous people with disabilities, however, have declared that the
ADA has played an important role in improving their lives. In 1995, NCD
issued a report titled Voices of Freedom: America Speaks Out on the
ADA, in which it presented a large number of statements by individuals
with disabilities talking about the impact of the ADA. The following is
a tiny sampling of the thousands of statements NCD received:
The ADA is fantastic. I can go out and participate. The ADA makes
me feel like I'm one of the gang. (Sandra Brent, Arkansas)
Even though we had the Rehab Act of 1973, it took the ADA to make
real change. The ADA has given me hope, independence, and dignity. (
Yadi Mark, Louisiana)
Because of the ADA, I have more of the opportunities that other
people have. Now I feel like a participant in life, not a spectator.
(Brenda Henry, Kansas)
A successful person with a disability was once thought of as
unusual. Now successful people with disabilities are the rule. It's the
ADA that has opened the door. (Donna Smith-Whitty, Mississippi) \7\
The report presented statements by people with disabilities about
their experiences with the ADA in various aspects of their lives,
including access to the physical environment, access to employment
opportunities, communication mobility, and self image. The report
concluded that, * * * the actual research data and the experiences of
people with disabilities, of their family members, of businesses, and
of public servants, [demonstrates] that this relatively new law has
begun to move us rapidly toward a society in which all Americans can
live, attend school, obtain employment, be a part of a family, and be a
part of a community in spite of the presence of a disability. What is
needed now is a renewed commitment to the goals of the Act (which were
crafted under unprecedented bipartisan efforts), sufficient resources
to support further education and training concerning the ADA, and
effective enforcement.\8\
In a similar vein, President George W. Bush declared the following
in 2002:
In the 12 years since President George H.W. Bush signed the ADA
into law, more people with disabilities are participating fully in our
society than ever before. As we mark this important anniversary, we
celebrate the positive effect this landmark legislation has had upon
our Nation, and we recognize the important influence it has had in
improving employment opportunities, government services, public
accommodations, transportation, and telecommunications for those with
disabilities.
Today, Americans with disabilities enjoy greatly improved access to
countless facets of life; but more needs to be done. We must continue
to build on the important foundations established by the ADA. Too many
Americans with disabilities remain isolated, dependent, and deprived of
the tools they need to enjoy all that our Nation has to offer.\9\
Judicial resistance
In light of the overwhelming endorsement of the ADA by Congress in
enacting it, by the Presidents in office at and since its enactment,
and by the majority of the general public, it is surprising and
disappointing that the judiciary all too often has given the Act the
cold shoulder. Problematic judicial interpretations have blunted the
Act's impact in significant ways. The National Council on Disability,
numerous legal commentators, and large numbers of people with
disabilities have become increasingly concerned about certain
interpretations and limitations placed on the ADA in decisions of the
U.S. Supreme Court.
This is not to suggest that all the rulings of the high court on
the ADA have been negative. Among favorable decisions, the U.S. Supreme
Court has (1) upheld the ADA's integration requirement and applied it
to prohibit unnecessary segregation of people receiving residential
services from the states; (2) held the ADA applicable to protect
prisoners in state penal systems; (3) held that the ADA prohibits
discrimination by a dentist against a person with HIV infection; (4)
ruled that the ADA required the PGA to allow a golfer with a mobility
impairment to use a golf cart in tournament play as a ``reasonable
modification;'' and ruled that the ADA protects the rights of people
with disabilities to have access to the courts. But while not all of
the Court's ADA decisions are objectionable, those that are have had a
serious negative impact. They have placed severe restrictions on the
class of persons protected by the ADA, have narrowed the remedies
available to complainants who successfully prove violations of the Act,
have expanded the defenses available to employers, and have even called
into question the very legality of some parts of the Act. NCD's policy
paper, The Impact of the Supreme Court's ADA Decisions on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities, explores the effect such decisions have had
on individuals with disabilities. Paper No. 7 of NCD's Policy Brief
Series: Righting the ADA Papers can be found at http://www.ncd.gov/
newsroom/publications/2003/policybrief.htm.
Media coverage of the Court's ADA decisions has made matters worse.
While such coverage has not been uniformly negative, a significant
portion of it has been misleading, presenting the Act in a highly
unfavorable light and placing a negative ``spin'' on the ADA, the court
decisions interpreting it, and its impact on American society. NCD's
extensive and detailed policy paper, Negative Media Portrayals of the
ADA, discusses prevalent media-fed myths about the ADA. Paper No. 5 of
NCD's Policy Brief Series: Righting the ADA Papers can be found at
http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2003/policybrief.htm.
Inhibitive court decisions combined with harmful media perspectives
have caused the ADA to be the object of frequent misunderstanding,
confusion, and even derision. The detrimental pronouncements of the
courts and negative impressions of the ADA fostered by media
mischaracterizations have fed on one another and have generated
increasing misunderstandings of the Act's underlying purposes and
vision, frustrated some of its central aims, and narrowed the scope and
degree of its influence.
Problematic interpretations of the ADA
A. Surprising Problems with the Definition of Disability
When Congress passed the ADA and President George H.W. Bush signed
it into law, hardly anyone expected trouble in the courts with the
definition of disability. Congress played it safe by adopting in the
ADA a definition of disability that was the same as the definition of
``handicap'' under the Rehabilitation Act. That definition was enacted
in 1974 and clarified in regulations issued under Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act. Because the definition was a broad and relatively
uncontroversial one, defendants seldom challenged plaintiffs' claims of
having a disability.\10\ In 1984, a federal district court noted that,
after 10 years' experience with the Rehabilitation Act definition, only
one court found a Section 504 plaintiff not to have a ``handicap.''
\11\
In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court made it abundantly clear that the
definition of ``handicap'' under Section 504 was very broad. In School
Board of Nassau County v. Arline, the Court took an expansive and
nontechnical view of the definition. The Court found that Ms. Arline's
history of hospitalization for infectious tuberculosis was ``more than
sufficient'' to establish that she had ``a record of'' a disability
under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The Court made this ruling
even though her discharge from her job was not because of her
hospitalization. The Court displayed a lenient interpretation of what a
plaintiff needed to show to invoke the protection of the statute. It
noted that, in establishing the new definition of disability in 1974,
Congress had expanded the definition ``so as to preclude discrimination
against `[a] person who has a record of, or is regarded as having, an
impairment [but who] may at present have no actual incapacity at all.'
''
The Court declared that the ``basic purpose of Section 504'' was to
ensure that individuals ``are not denied jobs or other benefits because
of the prejudiced attitudes or the ignorance of others'' or ``reflexive
reactions to actual or perceived [disabilities]'' and that the
legislative history of the definition of disability ``demonstrates that
Congress was as concerned about the effect of an impairment on others
as it was about its effect on the individual.'' The Court elaborated as
follows:
Congress extended coverage * * * to those individuals who are
simply ``regarded as having'' a physical or mental impairment. The
Senate Report provides as an example of a person who would be covered
under this subsection ``a person with some kind of visible physical
impairment which in fact does not substantially limit that person's
functioning.'' Such an impairment might not diminish a person's
physical or mental capabilities, but could nevertheless substantially
limit that person's ability to work as a result of the negative
reactions of others to the impairment.
When Congress was considering the ADA, the Supreme Court's decision
in School Board of Nassau County v. Arline was the leading legal
precedent on the definition of disability. The Arline ruling was
expressly relied on in several ADA committee reports discussing the
definition of disability, including the report of the House Judiciary
Committee, which quoted the exact language of the Court as set out
above.\12\
This was the legal background when Congress adopted the essentially
identical definition of disability in the ADA. To further ensure that
the definition of disability and other provisions of the ADA would not
receive restrictive interpretations, Congress included in the ADA a
provision requiring that ``nothing'' in the ADA was to ``be construed
to apply a lesser standard'' than is applied under the relevant
sections of the Rehabilitation Act, including Section 504, and the
regulations promulgating them. In his remarks at the ADA signing
ceremony, President George H.W. Bush pointed with pride to the ADA's
``piggybacking'' on Rehabilitation Act language:
The administration worked closely with the Congress to ensure that,
wherever possible, existing language and standards from the
Rehabilitation Act were incorporated into the ADA. The Rehabilitation
Act standards are already familiar to large segments of the private
sector that are either federal contractors or recipients of federal
funds. Because the Rehabilitation Act was enacted 17 years ago, there
is already an extensive body of law interpreting the requirements of
that Act.
Accordingly, at the time of the ADA's enactment, it seemed clear
that most ADA plaintiffs would not find it particularly difficult to
establish that they had a disability. NCD issued two policy papers that
discuss the care with which the ADA definition of disability was
selected and the breadth of that definition. A Carefully Constructed
Law and Broad or Narrow Construction of the ADA, papers No. 2 and No.
4, respectively, of NCD's Policy Brief Series: Righting the ADA Papers,
can be found at http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2003/
policybrief.htm.
For some time after the ADA was signed into law, the pattern of
broad and inclusive interpretation of the definition of disability,
established under Section 504, continued under the ADA. In 1996, a
federal district court declared that ``it is the rare case when the
matter of whether an individual has a disability is even disputed.''
\13\ As some lower courts, however, began to take restrictive views of
the concept of disability, defendants took note, and disability began
to be contested in more and more cases.
Beginning with its decision in Sutton v. United Airlines in 1999,
the U.S. Supreme Court started to turn its back on the broad, relaxed
interpretation of disability endorsed by the Court in the Arline
decision. By the time of the Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc.
v. Williams decision in 2002, the Court was espousing the view that the
definition should be ``interpreted strictly to create a demanding
standard for qualifying as disabled.'' This stance is directly contrary
to what the Congress and the President intended when they enacted the
ADA.
The result of the Court's harsh and restrictive approach to
defining disability places difficult, technical, and sometimes
insurmountable evidentiary burdens on people who have experienced
discrimination. The focus of many time-consuming and expensive legal
battles is on the characteristics of the person subjected to
discrimination rather than on the alleged discriminatory treatment
meted out by the accused party. The ADA was intended to regulate the
conduct of employers and other covered entities, and to induce them to
end discrimination. To the extent that these parties can divert the
focus to a microscopic dissection of the complaining party, central
objectives of the law are being frustrated.
Other governments and judicial forums have rejected the Supreme
Court's restrictive interpretation of disability. Thus, courts in the
individual states \14\ and in other countries \15\ have embraced more
inclusive interpretations of who has a disability under
nondiscrimination laws. And legislatures in the states \16\ and in
other countries \17\ deliberately have rejected the narrow approach
under U.S. law as enunciated in the Supreme Court's decisions.
B. Specific Problems with the Interpretation of Disability
In its Righting the ADA report, the National Council on Disability
described nine issues to which the Supreme Court's narrow approach to
the definition of disability in the ADA had led it to deviate from the
legislative intent with harmful consequences. These issues were:
(1) Consideration of Mitigating Measures in Determining Disability,
(2) Substantial Limitation of a Major Life Activity,
(3) Employment as a Major Life Activity,
(4) The ``Class or Broad Range of Jobs'' Standard,
(5) ``Regarded As'' Having a Disability,
(6) Validity of and Deference to Be Accorded Federal Regulations
Implementing the ADA's Definition of Disability,
(7) Duration Limitation on What Constitutes a Disability,
(8) Per Se Disabilities, and
(9) Restrictive Interpretation of the Definition of Disability to
Create a Demanding Standard.
In regard to each of these issues, the report describes ``What the
Supreme Court Did,'' analyzes the ``Significance of the Court's
Action,'' and gives specific ``Examples of Impact'' of the rulings. To
provide a graphic summary of the ways that the court decisions have
deviated from the intentions expressed by Congress when it enacted the
ADA, I have prepared and attached as Appendix B to this testimony a
chart contrasting ``What Congress Said'' with ``What the Courts Are Now
Saying.'' Similarly, the Righting the ADA report contains a section
titled ``Principles and Assumptions Regarding the Definition of
Disability When the ADA Was Enacted That Have Been Disregarded or
Contradicted by the Supreme Court'' which presents 11 important ways in
which the Court's ADA definitions decisions deviate from expectations
in place when the ADA was negotiated debated and enacted. For the sake
of brevity, that information is not reiterated here, but the discussion
of one of the issues--mitigating measures--that follows hopefully
exemplifies the kinds of serious problems the Court's approach to the
definition has caused.
Before the Supreme Court upset the applecart, all the relevant
authorities were nearly unanimous in the view that mitigating measures
should not be considered in deciding whether a person has a disability
under the ADA. Even before the ADA was enacted, the committee reports
on the pending legislation declared clearly that mitigating measures
should not be factored in. The three ADA Committee Reports that
addressed the issue all concurred that mitigating measures are not to
be taken into account when determining whether an individual has a
disability. This Committee declared unequivocally that ``[w]hether a
person has a disability should be assessed without regard to the
availability of mitigating measures * * *.'' \18\ The House Committee
on the Judiciary likewise declared that ``[t]he impairment should be
assessed without considering whether mitigating measures * * * would
result in a less-than-substantial limitation.'' \19\ To illustrate the
application of this approach, the Committee discussed the examples of a
person with epilepsy whose condition is mitigated by medication and of
a person with a hearing impairment whose hearing loss is corrected by
the use of a hearing aid. In the Committee's view, these individuals
would be covered by the ADA.
In a sharp break from the legislative history of the ADA, the
position of the executive agencies responsible for enforcing the ADA,
and the prior rulings of eight of the nine federal courts of appeal
that had addressed the issue, the Supreme Court decided, in its rulings
in the Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc., Murphy v. United Parcel
Service, and Albertson's, Inc. v. Kirkingburg cases, that mitigating
measures should be considered in determining whether an individual has
a disability under the ADA. The Supreme Court's position on mitigating
measures ignores the rationale that led courts, regulatory agencies,
and Congress to take a contrary position--that unless you disregard
mitigating measures in determining eligibility for ADA protection, you
shield much discrimination on the basis of disability from effective
challenge.
The result of the Court's rulings on mitigating measures turns the
ADA's definition of disability into an instrument for screening out
large groups of individuals with disabilities from the coverage of the
Act, and thereby insulating from challenge many instances of the
pervasive unfair and unnecessary discrimination that the law sought to
prohibit. To the extent that mitigating measures are successful in
managing an individual's condition, the Supreme Court's stance on
mitigating measures deprives the individual of the right to maintain an
ADA action to challenge acts of disability discrimination she or he has
experienced, because such a person is not eligible for the ADA's
protection. This means an employer or other covered entity may
discriminate with impunity against such individuals in various flagrant
and covert ways. NCD issued a policy paper examining the function and
types of mitigating measures, discussing the near consensus in the law
prior to the Supreme Court's taking a contrary position, and describing
the repercussions of the Court's position. The Role of Mitigating
Measures in the Narrowing of the ADA's Coverage, paper No. 11 of NCD's
Policy Brief Series: Righting the ADA Papers, can be found at http://
www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2003/policybrief.htm.
Taking the condition of epilepsy to illustrate, before the Supreme
Court's rulings in Sutton, Murphy, and Kirkingburg, ``a person [with]
epilepsy would receive nearly automatic ADA protection,'' \20\
consistent with statements in the ADA legislative history and
regulatory guidance. The ADA regulatory commentary of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and Department of Justice
(DOJ) specifically declared that an individual with epilepsy would
remain within the coverage of the ADA even if the effects of the
condition were controlled by medication.
The situation changed dramatically with the Supreme Court's
mitigating measures decisions. To the extent that a covered entity can
successfully demonstrate (after extensive, intrusive discovery into the
details of the person's condition) that an individual's epilepsy is
effectively controlled by medication, the individual cannot challenge
the discriminatory actions of the covered entity. This is true even if
the employer or other covered entity has an express policy against the
hiring of people with epilepsy; puts up signs that say, ``epileptics
not welcome here;'' inaccurately assumes that all persons with epilepsy
are inherently unsafe; or has the irrational belief that epilepsy is
contagious. The unfairness or irrationality of the covered entity's
actions and motivations, including stereotypes, fears, assumptions, and
other forms of prejudice, cannot be challenged by a person whose
condition is mitigated. The end result is that it is a rare plaintiff
who is in a position to challenge even the most egregious and
outrageous discrimination involving a condition that can be mitigated.
One study, by the Epilepsy Legal Defense Fund, found that, of 36 cases
in which courts had ruled on the issue since the Supreme Court issued
its decision in Sutton v. United Airlines, 32 had decided that epilepsy
was not a disability.
Epilepsy is an illustrative example, but the same principles apply
to diabetes, various psychiatric disabilities, hypertension, arthritis,
and numerous other conditions that, for some individuals, can be
controlled by medication. Moreover, the same problems arise with
conditions for which techniques and devices other than medication
provide an avenue for mitigation. Thus, a company that discriminates
against people who use hearing aids will be insulated from challenge by
people for whom the hearing aids are effective in offsetting, to some
degree, diminution of functional ability to hear. Other mitigating
measures, including prosthetic devices, can raise the same issues--to
the extent that they are successful, they may lead to an argument that
the person does not have a disability, even if she or he is
discriminated against precisely because of the underlying condition or
even the use of the mitigating measure itself. Obviously, this is
directly contrary to the stated intentions of this Committee and the
Congress as a whole.
C. Misconstruing a Central Premise Underlying the ADA
Courts that have espoused restrictive interpretations of the
definition of disability under the ADA have truly missed the boat on
disability. They have exhibited long-held, antiquated notions about
disability and about the role of government in addressing disability.
If courts think of people with disabilities as not capable of working,
for example, anyone who is able to work must not be disabled.
Similarly, access barriers were historically viewed by many people as
being barriers because of an individual's disability, as opposed to the
problem being the barrier itself. When a person with a mobility
impairment, for example, could not cross a street with curbs, the
person's disability was considered to be the reason, as opposed to
recognizing that the design of the curb was deficient because it was
done with only certain types of people in mind, when it could just as
easily have been designed to be usable by all. The ADA embodies a
social concept of discrimination that views many limitations resulting
from actual or perceived impairments as flowing, not from limitations
of the individual, but, rather, from the existence of unnecessary
barriers to full participation in society and its institutions. The
social model is at variance with the medical model of disability that
centers on assessments of the degree of a person's functional
limitation.\21\
I once wrote that ``[d]isability nondiscrimination laws, such as
the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the disability rights movement
that spawned them have, at their core, a central premise both simple
and profound * * * that people denominated as `disabled' are just
people--not different in any critical way from other people.'' \22\ To
elaborate a bit on that idea, I wrote a section titled ``People with
Disabilities ``People with Disabilities as Regular Joes and Janes''
that I shall take the liberty of quoting from here:
Over thirty years ago, Jacobus tenBroek characterized people with
disabilities as ``normal people caught at a physical and social
disadvantage.'' In his remark, Professor tenBroek captured a truth that
is both the guiding star and essential foundation * * *--that
individuals with disabilities are just people, not essentially
different from other people. Though this proposition is relatively
simple to state, its acceptance is the single most universal aspiration
of most individuals with disabilities, a central tenet of the
Disability Rights Movement, and a sine qua non of real equality for
people with disabilities.
This helps to explain why terminology in regard to disabilities has
been a sensitive issue. People with disabilities have come to recognize
that processes by which they are assigned labels have reinforced the
perception that they are substantially different from others. In
response, they have strongly insisted that ``we are `people first,' ''
and have demanded that their common humanity be acknowledged rather
than their differentness magnified. It also explains why many
individuals with disabilities resist attempts to characterize them as
``special'' or their daily accomplishments as ``inspirational'' or
``courageous.'' At best, such characterizations mark the individual so
labeled as extraordinary and different from the rest of the population
and one whose accomplishments and success are a surprise; at worst,
they suggest that the speaker is saying ``Being who you are is so bad
that I could not face it--I would just give up,'' ``Your limitations
are so severe that I don't see how you accomplish anything,'' or even
``I would rather be dead than to live with your impairments.'' People
with disabilities do not view their going about the tasks and trials
involved in ordinary activities and trying to have accomplishments and
success as something atypical and heroic. They would prefer to be seen
for what they are, as ordinary individuals pursuing the same types of
goals--love, success, sexual fulfillment, contributing to society,
material comforts, etc.--as other folks.
The ``integration'' that is required under the ADA and Sections
501, 503, and 504, and the ``full participation'' that is the ultimate
objective of federal laws relating to disabilities dictate that
individuals with disabilities not be unnecessarily differentiated from
the rest of society. To achieve this end, analysis under these laws
should not focus on differentiating characteristics of the individual
alleging discrimination, but instead on the practices and operations of
covered entities to determine whether or not they are in fact
discriminatory, when examined in light of latent flexibility in
structuring and modifying tasks, programs, facilities, and
opportunities. Legal standards imposed under these laws should serve to
eliminate practices, policies, barriers, and other mechanisms that
discriminate on the basis of disability, not to eliminate as many
people as possible from the protection provided in these laws. In
short, these laws seek to promote real equality, not to protect a
special group.\23\
Despite common misconceptions that there are two distinct groups in
society--those with disabilities and those without--and that it is
possible to draw sharp distinctions between these two groups, people
actually vary across a whole spectrum of infinitely small gradations of
ability with regard to each individual functional skill. And the
importance of particular functional skills varies immensely according
to the situation, and can be greatly affected by the availability or
unavailability of accommodations and alternative methods of doing
things. This human ``spectrum of abilities'' was recognized in a 1983
report by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights--Accommodating the
Spectrum of Individual Abilities. The Commission noted that, while the
popular view is that people with disabilities are impaired in ways that
make them sharply distinguishable from nondisabled people, instead of
two separate and distinct classes, there are in fact ``spectrums of
physical and mental abilities that range from superlative to minimal or
nonfunctional.'' \24\ In some of its publications, the National Council
on Disability has explained and elaborated on the spectrum of abilities
concept.\25\
In addition, authorities on disability are generally in agreement
that the concept of disability entails a social judgment; people come
to have a disability when they are viewed and treated as having one by
other people. As the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights put it in
Accommodating the Spectrum of Individual Abilities, ``people are made
different--that is socially differentiated--by the process of being
seen and treated as different in a system of social practices that
crystallizes distinctions * * *.'' \26\ Thus, the experience of
disability is closely linked to the concept of discrimination.
Individuals may encounter discrimination on the basis of disability
whether or not they previously thought of themselves as having a
disability, and whether or not they meet foreordained, medically
oriented criteria. To achieve its purposes of eliminating
discrimination and achieving integration, the ADA should reduce the
unnecessary differentiation of people because of actual, perceived, or
former physical and mental characteristics. It emphatically should not
force people to demonstrate their differentness as a prerequisite to
receiving protection under the Act.
The ADA is based on a social or civil rights model (sometimes
referred to as a socio-political model), in contrast to the traditional
``medical model.'' It views the limitations that arise from
disabilities as largely the result of prejudice and discrimination
rather than as purely the inevitable result of deficits in the
individual. Sociology Professor Richard K. Scotch, a disability policy
author, has written:
In the socio-political model, disability is viewed not as a
physical or mental impairment, but as a social construction shaped by
environmental factors, including physical characteristics built into
the environment, cultural attitudes and social behaviors, and the
institutionalized rules, procedures, and practices of private entities
and public organizations. All of these, in turn, reflect overly narrow
assumptions about what constitutes the normal range of human
functioning.\27\
Law Professor Linda Hamilton Krieger has written that the ADA's
concept of disability views it ``not only in terms of the internal
attributes of the arguably disabled individual, but also in terms of
external attributes of the attitudinal environment in which that person
must function. `Disability,' under this conception, resides as much in
the attitudes of society as in the characteristics of the disabled
individual.'' \28\ She elaborated on the ADA's adoption of the social
model as follows:
[T]he drafters of the ADA sought to transform the institution of
disability by locating responsibility for disablement not only in a
disabled person's impairment, but also in ``disabling'' physical or
structural environments. Under such a construction, the concept of
disability takes on new social meaning. It is not merely a container
holding tragedy, or occasion for pity, charity, or exemption from the
ordinary obligations attending membership in society. The concept of
disability now also, or to a certain extent instead, contains rights to
and societal responsibility for making enabling environmental
adaptations. The ADA was in this way crafted to replace the old
impairment model of disability with a socio-political approach.
The National Council on Disability has discussed the necessity for
applying the social model of disability under the ADA.\29\ In the topic
paper accompanying its initial proposal of an Americans with
Disabilities Act, NCD expressly rejected the ``medical model'' and the
need for people to demonstrate the severity of their limitations as a
precondition to being protected from discrimination.\30\ In its
Righting the ADA report, NCD included a section titled ``Incorporation
of a Social Model of Discrimination.'' The Council declared:
The ADA embodies a social concept of discrimination that views many
limitations resulting from actual or perceived disabilities as flowing,
not from limitations of the individual, but, rather, from the existence
of unnecessary barriers to full participation in society and its
institutions. This is in contrast to the medical model of disability
that centers on assessments of the degree of a person's functional
limitation.\31\
Accordingly, NCD called for the enactment of a specific provision
of its ADA Restoration Act proposal to make the endorsement of the
social model explicit.\32\
D. Other Kinds of Problems Resulting from Supreme Court
Rulings
Apart from problems with the definition of disability, the Righting
the ADA report discusses in detail several other kinds of problems that
have resulting from ill-advised ADA rulings of the Supreme Court. These
include the following:
1. In Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia
Department of Health and Human Resources, the Supreme Court rejected
the ``catalyst theory'' that most lower courts had applied in
determining the availability of attorney's fees and litigation costs to
plaintiffs in cases under the ADA and other civil rights statutes, and
under other federal laws that authorize such payments to the
``prevailing party.''
2. In Barnes v. Gorman, the Supreme Court ruled that punitive
damages may not be awarded in private suits brought under Title VI of
the 1964 Civil Rights Act, under Section 202 of the ADA, or under
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
3. In Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal, the Supreme Court upheld as
permissible under the ADA the EEOC regulatory provision that allows
employers to refuse to hire applicants because their performance on the
job would endanger their health because of a disability, despite the
fact that, in the language of the ADA, Congress recognized a ``direct-
threat'' defense only for dangers posed to other workers.
4. In U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, the Supreme Court recognized a
reasonableness standard for reasonable accommodations separate from
undue hardship analysis.
5. In U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, the Supreme Court ruled that
the ADA ordinarily does not require the assignment of an employee with
a disability, as a reasonable accommodation, to a particular position
to which another employee is entitled under an employer's established
seniority system, but that it might in special circumstances. The Court
declared that ``to show that a requested accommodation conflicts with
the rules of a seniority system is ordinarily to show that the
accommodation is not `reasonable.' ''
The implications of some of these rulings are a bit technical and a
fuller explanation is not provided here. They are explained in some
detail in Righting the ADA and in the specific topic papers mentioned
in the report. As those sources explain, the negative impact of such
decisions on the protection of people with disabilities under the ADA
is significant and disturbing.
Getting the ADA back on track: remedial legislation
A. Generally
Based on its analysis of what has happened in the last 17 years
since the ADA was enacted the National Council on Disability reached
the following conclusion:
Incisive and forceful legislative action is needed to address the
dramatic narrowing and weakening of the protection provided by the ADA,
resulting from the Supreme Court's decisions, and to restore civil
rights protections. Millions of Americans experience discrimination
based on ignorance, prejudice, fears, myths, misconceptions, and
stereotypes that many in American society continue to associate with
certain impairments, diagnoses, or characteristics. To revive the scope
and degree of protection that the ADA was supposed to provide--to
address ``pervasive'' discrimination in a ``comprehensive'' manner, as
the Act declares--and to put ADA protections on a more equal footing
with other civil rights protections under federal law, it is necessary
to remove conceptual and interpretational baggage that has been
attached to various elements of the ADA. Any legislative proposal
should address, in some way, each of the problems listed in Section II
of this report [Righting the ADA] that the Court's decisions have
created.
For convenience I am attaching as Appendix C to this testimony the
Executive Summary of NCD's Righting the ADA report. It contains a
legislative proposal for getting the ADA back on course--an ADA
Restoration Act bill--with an explanatory introduction and a section-
by-section summary. I believe it represents the best thinking to date
on what ought to be done to ``restore'' the ADA to its original
congressionally intended course. NCD's proposal addresses a broader
array of issues than are dealt with in H.R. 3195, but the amendments
proposed in H.R. 3195 to restore the protections and scope of coverage
of the ADA are largely based on and generally quite consistent with the
Righting the ADA proposals.
B. Restoring the Scope of ADA Protection--H.R. 3195
The courts have made a royal mess of the three-prong definition of
disability in the ADA. This has occurred in spite of very clear and
explicit language and guidance Congress provided in the Act and its
legislative history. Baffled individuals with all sorts of physical and
mental impairments find that they are not allowed to challenge
discrimination against them, based on legal rationales that are
tortured, hypertechnical, and contrary to common sense.
Employers are able to say ``Your condition is so problematic that I
can't hire you,'' or ``so problematic that I must terminate you,'' and
then turn around and argue in court, successfully, that ``your
condition isn't serious enough to constitute a disability.'' The focus
of proceedings in most ADA cases is not on the alleged discrimination
the plaintiff experienced. Instead the focus is on an invasive and
often embarrassing, detailed dissection of the plaintiff's condition,
limitations, and medical background. Instead of concentrating on
employment or other particular activity in which the discrimination is
alleged to have occurred, the proceedings and arguments often are about
other activities, such as sexual activities, reproduction, personal
care, and many other areas of life far afield from the alleged
discrimination. Plaintiffs are required to demonstrate whether, in
discharging them, employers were thinking they were unfit for a broad
class or range of jobs--a matter that is purely hypothetical and
concerns the mental state of the employer--a notoriously difficult
thing to prove. Astoundingly, the Supreme Court has even questioned
whether employment is a major life activity at all.
H.R. 3195 addresses the most serious distortions that have resulted
from a constricted interpretation by the courts of the ADA definition
of disability. It does so in a manner that is straightforward and
effective in clearing up the detrimental analytical muddle of the
current judicial interpretations. Consistent with informed public
policy, the bill returns the primary focus away from misplaced efforts
to draw pedantic, absurd distinctions based on judicial assessments of
degree of limitation and returns it to identifying and eliminating
discrimination on the basis of disability. To repair the tangle of
interpretations that have resulted from the Supreme Court's announced
proclivity for seeing to it that the ADA's coverage is ``interpreted
strictly to create a demanding standard for qualifying as disabled,''
\33\ the bill replaces the concept of ``substantial limitation,'' that
has been so thoroughly and irreparably compromised and misapplied by
the courts, with the straightforward concept of physical or mental
impairment, a concept that has a clear and settled definition. A person
who has been subjected to an adverse employment action (or
disadvantaged in regard to other types of services or benefits of non-
employment programs and entities covered by the ADA) because of a
physical or mental impairment will be protected by the ADA.
At first glance, one might question whether this alteration to the
statutory language will engender an unwarranted enlargement of ADA
coverage--expansion rather than restoration. A more informed
understanding of the scope of protection Congress intended to establish
in 1990 leads to the opposite conclusion. The third prong of the ADA
definition, which includes people who are ``regarded as'' having an
impairment, was understood at the time of enactment to include anyone
who was disadvantaged by a covered entity on the basis of disability.
It is well-documented, if all too often ignored by the courts that, as
understood by Congress when it passed the ADA, the law was supposed to
protect any person who was discriminated against because of a physical
or mental impairment. In its Committee Report accompanying its
reporting out of the ADA, this Committee said:
The third prong of the definition includes an individual who is
regarded as having a covered impairment. This third prong includes an
individual who has physical or mental impairment that does not
substantially limit a major life activity, but that is treated by a
covered entity as constituting such a limitation. The prong also
includes an individual who has a physical or mental impairment that
substantially limits a major activity only as a result of the attitudes
of others toward such impairment or has no physical or mental
impairment but is treated by a covered entity as having such an
impairment.\34\
The Senate ADA Report contained identical language.\35\
The Committee on Education and Labor went on to explain, in crystal
clear terms:
A person who is excluded from any basic life activity, or is
otherwise discriminated against, because of a covered entity's negative
attitudes toward that person's impairment is treated as having a
disability. Thus, for example, if an employer refuses to hire someone
because of a fear of the ``negative reactions'' of others to the
individual, or because of the employer's perception that the applicant
has an impairment which prevents that person from working, that person
is covered under the third prong of the definition of disability.\36\
The Report of this Committee and those of the Senate and the House
Judiciary Committee all discussed, as guiding precedent, the decision
of the Supreme Court in the Arline case, which, as described above,
took an expansive view of the third prong of the definition, and all
three quoted the following language from the Arline decision:
Such an impairment might not diminish a person's physical or mental
capabilities, but could nevertheless substantially limit that person's
ability to work as a result of the negative reactions of other to the
impairment.\37\
Clearly, Congress understood that Section 504 did, and intended
that the ADA would, protect a person with an impairment, even if it did
not substantially limit a major life activity.
Contrary to the Supreme Court's view discussed above, Congress
intended that adverse employment action by a single employer in regard
to a single job would be sufficient to satisfy the third prong of the
ADA definition. The Senate Committee Report pointedly cited as examples
of individuals included within the ``regarded as'' concept ``people who
are rejected for a particular job for which they apply because of
findings of a back abnormality in an x-ray, notwithstanding the absence
of any symptoms, or people who are rejected for a particular job solely
because they wear hearing aids * * *.'' \38\ The report added:
A person who is excluded from any activity covered under this Act
or is otherwise discriminated against because of a covered entity's
negative attitudes towards disability is being treated as having a
disability which affects a major life activity. For example, if a
public accommodation, such as a restaurant, refused entry to a person
with cerebral palsy because of that person's physical appearance, that
person would be covered under the third prong of the definition.
Similarly, if an employer refuses to hire someone because of a fear of
the (negative reactions( of others to the individual, or because of the
employer's perception that the applicant had a disability which
prevented that person from working, that person would be covered under
the third prong.\39\
Not only is there no suggestion of a need to show that the
individual is limited in connection with other jobs or participation in
other programs, but in support of the quoted language the report cited
Thornhill v. Marsh and Doe v. Centinela Hospital--two decisions which
broadly interpret the third prong, consistent with the Arline
decision.\40\ This Committee expressed similar sentiments and included
the same case citations in its report.\41\
The House Committee on the Judiciary used language that differs
somewhat from that in the other reports but to similar effect. It noted
that a person who is rejected from a job because of the myths, fears,
and stereotypes associated with disabilities would be covered under
this third test, whether or not the employer's perception was shared by
others in the field and whether or not the person's physical or mental
condition would be considered a disability under the first or second
part of the definition.\42\
To manifest its intent even further, the Judiciary Committee
declared:
In the employment context, if a person is disqualified on the basis
of an actual or perceived physical or mental condition, and the
employer can articulate no legitimate job-related reason for the
rejection, a perceived concern about employing persons with
disabilities could be inferred and the plaintiff would qualify for
coverage under the (regarded as( test.\43\
Thus, all of the Congressional Committees that commented on the ADA
definition of disability understood it to include persons with any
degree or type of physical or mental impairment if they were
discriminated against because of it; or even if they had no impairment
at all, if the covered entity believed they did and subjected them to
discrimination for that reason. Accordingly, H.R. 3195 merely restores,
not expands, the coverage of the ADA by protecting persons who are
discriminated against because of a physical or mental impairment
regardless of severity.
Another possible objection to H.R. 3195 is that it might make
people with very minor impairments eligible for ``reasonable
accommodations,'' to the serious detriment of employers. This concern
reflects a misunderstanding about the entitlement to reasonable
accommodations under the ADA. The ADA does not entitle everyone
protected from discrimination under the Act to receive a reasonable
accommodation, nor does the Act provide a right to covered individuals
to any accommodations they may desire.
Reasonable accommodations are required under the act for a reason--
to overcome the effects of impairment that will prevent performance of
essential job functions or result in denial of job benefits. The ADA
regulations issued by the EEOC make this abundantly clear; they declare
that the term ``reasonable accommodation'' means:
Modifications or adjustments to the work environment, or to the
manner or circumstances under which the position held or desired is
customarily performed, that enable a qualified individual with a
disability to perform the essential functions of that position.'' \44\
The EEOC's Interpretive Guidance explains that ([t]he reasonable
accommodation requirement is best understood as a means by which
barriers to the equal employment opportunity of an individual with a
disability are removed or alleviated( and adds that those barriers may
consist of physical or structural obstacles, rigid schedules,
inflexible procedures, or undue limitations in the ways tasks are
accomplished.\45\
The nature and function of reasonable accommodation mean that a
person cannot qualify for one unless he or she can show that a physical
or mental impairment prevents the performance of an essential job
function. Unless the impairment has such an effect, there is no reason
for an accommodation. Accordingly, fears that people having very minor
impairments will be able to demand accommodations willy-nilly is
totally unfounded. Minor impairments will seldom, if ever, prevent
performance of essential employment functions.
Even if a person could show that a minor impairment did somehow
preclude performance of an essential function of the job, that would
still not mean that the person could obtain some extravagant
accommodation. The process of deciding upon and rendering accommodation
is largely within the auspices of employers.
The EEOC's Interpretive Guidance and the ADA committee reports
specified a process that covered entities should follow when
determining what type of accommodation ought to be provided in a
particular situation. The reports of this Committee and that of the
Senate Labor and Human Resources declared in identical language that:
The Committee believes that the reasonable accommodation
requirement is best understood as a process in which barriers to a
particular individual's equal employment opportunity are removed. The
accommodation process focuses on the needs of a particular individual
in relation to problems in performance of a particular job because of a
physical or mental impairment. A problem-solving approach should be
used to identify the particular tasks or aspects of the work
environment that limit performance and to identify possible
accommodations that will result in a meaningful equal opportunity for
the individual with a disability.\46\
If initial discussions between the employer and the employee or
applicant do not readily disclose what accommodation is called for, the
EEOC recommends that an employer undertake a four-step process:
(1) Analyze the particular job involved and determine its purpose
and essential functions;
(2) Consult with the individual with disability to ascertain the
precise job-related limitations imposed by the individual's disability
and how those limitations could be overcome with a reasonable
accommodation;
(3) In consultation with the individual to be accommodated,
identify potential accommodations and assess the effectiveness each
would have in enabling the individual to perform the essential
functions of the position; and
(4) Consider the preference of the individual to be accommodated
and select and implement the accommodation that is most appropriate for
both the employee and the employer.\47\
The first step, analyzing the job, involves examining the actual
job duties and determining the true purpose or object of the job and
identifying the essential functions that an accommodation must enable
the individual with a disability to perform.\48\ The ADA committee
reports refer to this step as ``identifying and distinguishing between
essential and nonessential job tasks and aspects of the work
environment of the relevant position(s).'' \49\ The second step,
ascertaining the limitations imposed by the disability and how a
reasonable accommodation might overcome them, seeks to identify the
precise barrier to the employment opportunity that needs to be
addressed by an accommodation.\50\
The third step, identifying possible accommodations and assessing
their effectiveness, begins with suggestions of accommodations by the
individual needing accommodation and may also involve consultations
with vocational rehabilitation personnel, the EEOC, or disability
constituent organizations.\51\ Assessing the effectiveness of various
possible accommodations includes considering the likely success of each
potential accommodation in assisting the individual to perform the
essential functions of the position, the reliability of the
accommodation, and whether it can be provided in a timely manner.\52\
The fourth step is to select and implement an appropriate
accommodation. Where more than one accommodation will enable the
individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of the
position, his or her preference should be given primary consideration,
but the employer retains the ultimate discretion to choose between
effective accommodations and may choose the one that is less expensive
or easier to provide.\53\
At each of these steps, employers are in the driver's seat,
although they are definitely required to consult with the individual
seeking the accommodation. Employers will certainly be able to say no
to unjustified or excessive requested accommodations. And ultimately
the employer can, if necessary, invoke the ADA's defense against having
to provide accommodations that result in an undue hardship. Thus, in
the highly unlikely hypothetical situation in which a person could
demonstrate that a minor impairment would somehow prevent performance
of an essential job function, the employer would be fully within its
rights to select a realistic and proportionate accommodation.
H.R. 3195 will not cause a problem of accommodations for minor
impairments. Nor will it enlarge the ADA's coverage beyond that
intended when the law was enacted. The bill's approach to restoring the
definition of disability is well-designed to undo the damage wrought by
the courts' constricted interpretation of ADA protection. I hope that
this Committee will advance this legislation promptly to achieve what
the Committee intended when it voted 35-0 to report out the ADA in
1989.
Thank you very much for this opportunity to provide input to the
Committee on this highly important subject.
appendix a.--sampling of cases in which plaintiffs having significant
impairments were unsuccessful in demonstrating that they were protected
by the ada
Amputation: Williams v. Cars Collision Center, LLC, No. 06 C 2105 (N.D.
Ill. July 9, 2007).
Asbestosis: Robinson v. Global Marine Drilling Co., 101 F.3d 35 (5th
Cir. 1996).
Asthma: Tangires v. Johns Hopkins Hosp., 79 F.Supp.2d 587, 589
(D.Md.2000)
Back Injury: Wood v. Crown Redi-Mix, Inc., 339 F.3d 682, 684 (8th
Cir.2003)
Bipolar disorder: Johnson v. North Carolina Dep't of Health and Human
Servs., (M.D.N.C. 2006).
Breast cancer (and accompanying mastectomy, chemotherapy, and radiation
therapy): Pimental v. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Clinic, 236 F. Supp.
2d 177, 183 (D.N.H. 2002); Turner v. Sullivan University
Systems, Inc., 420 F. Supp. 2d 773, 777 (W.D. Ky. 2006).
Breast cancer (and accompanying mastectomy and chemotherapy): Schaller
v. Donelson Air Conditioning Co., 2005 WL 1868769 (M.D. Tenn.
Aug. 4, 2005).
Cirrhosis of the liver caused by chronic Hepatitis B: Furnish v. SVI
Sys. Inc., 270 F.3d 445 (7th Cir. 2001).
Depression: McMullin v. Ashcroft, 337 F.Supp.2d 1281, 1298-99
(D.Wyo.2004).
Diabetes: Orr v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 297 F.3d 720 (8th Cir. 2002).
Epilepsy: Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. Sara Lee Corp., 237
F.3d 349 (4th Cir. 2001); Todd v. Academy Corp., 57 F. Supp. 2d
448, 453-54 (S.D. Tex. 1999).
Fractured spine: Williams v. Excel Foundry & Machine, Inc., 489 F.3d
309, 311 (7th Cir. 2007).
Heart disease and diabetes: Epstein v. Kalvin-Miller International,
Inc., 100 F. Supp. 2d 222, 223 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
HIV Infection: Cruz Carrillo v. AMR Eagle, Inc., 148 F.Supp.2d 142, 146
(D.P.R.2001).
Impaired hearing/use of hearing aid: Eckhaus v. Consolidated Rail,
Corp., No. Civ. 00-5748 (WGB), 2003 WL 23205042, at *5 (D.N.J.
Dec. 24, 2003).
Loss of most vision in one eye: Foore v. City of Richmond, 6 Fed. Appx.
148, 150 (4th Cir. 2001).
Loss of use of right arm: Didier v. Schwan Food Co., 465 F.3d 838 (8th
Cir. 2006).
``Mental retardation''--intellectual and developmental disabilities:
Littleton v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 05-12770, 2007 WL
1379986, at *4 (11th Cir. May 11, 2007)
Multiple sclerosis: Sorensen v. University of Utah Hosp., 194 F.3d
1084, 1089 (10th Cir.1999).
Muscular dystrophy: McClure v. General Motors Corp., 75 Fed. Appx. 983,
2003 WL 21766539 (5th Cir. 2003).
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder: Rohan v. Networks Presentations LLC,
375 F.3d 266, 277 (4th Cir.2004).
Traumatic brain injury: Phillips v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 78 F. Supp.
2d 1274 (S.D. Ala. 1999).
APPENDIX B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONGRESS SAID THE COURTS NOW SAY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
``COMPREHENSIVE PROHIBITION OF ELEMENTS OF DEFINITION ``NEED TO BE
DISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF INTERPRETED STRICTLY TO CREATE A
DISABILITY'' DEMANDING STANDARD FOR QUALIFYING
AS `DISABLED' ''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
``DISABILITY SHOULD BE ASSESSED MITIGATING MEASURES SHOULD BE
WITHOUT REGARD TO THE AVAILABILITY CONSIDERED IN DETERMINING
OF MITIGATING MEASURES'' EXISTENCE OF A DISABILITY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EMPLOYMENT IS A MAJOR LIFE ACTIVITY EMPLOYMENT MAY NOT BE A MAJOR LIFE
ACTIVITY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DENIAL OF A PARTICULAR JOB IS THERE MUST BE DENIAL OF A BROAD
SUFFICIENT TO CONSTITUTE A RANGE OR CLASS OF JOBS TO
SUBSTANTIAL LIMITATION IN CONSTITUTE A SUBSTANTIAL
EMPLOYMENT LIMITATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL AGENCIES ARE DIRECTED TO REGULATIONS INTERPRETING THE
ISSUE REGULATIONS FOR CARRYING OUT DEFINITION OF DISABILITY ARE OF
ADA DOUBTFUL VALIDITY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
``MAJOR LIFE ACTIVITIES OF SUCH ``ACTIVITIES THAT ARE OF CENTRAL
INDIVIDUAL'' IMPORTANCE IN MOST PEOPLE'S DAILY
LIVES''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
``SUBSTANTIALLY LIMITS'' ``PREVENTS OR SEVERELY RESTRICTS''
------------------------------------------------------------------------
``REGARDED AS'' PRONG APPLIES TO ``REGARDED AS'' PRONG SUBJECT TO
PERSON DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BASED FIRST PRONG LIMITATIONS, SUCH AS
ON DISABILITY EVEN IF PERSON DOES CONSIDERATION OF MITIGATING
NOT HAVE SUBSTANTIALLY LIMITING MEASURES AND REQUIREMENT THAT
CONDITION PERSON BE UNABLE TO PERFORM BROAD
RANGE OR CLASS OF JOBS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
``REGARDED AS'' PRONG APPLIES TO ``REGARDED AS'' PRONG APPLIES ONLY
PERSON TREATED AS HAVING A WHEN EMPLOYER SHOWN TO ``ENTERTAIN
DISABILITY MISPERCEPTIONS ABOUT THE
INDIVIDUAL'' AND BELIEVES THE
PERSON HAS A SUBSTANTIALLY
LIMITING IMPAIRMENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NO MENTION OF DURATION-OF- ``IMPAIRMENT'S IMPACT MUST ALSO BE
IMPAIRMENT LIMITATION PERMANENT OR LONG TERM'' TO
CONSTITUTE A DISABILITY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HIV, PARAPLEGIA, DEAFNESS, HARD OF MAYBE SO, MAYBE NOT
HEARING/HEARING LOSS, LUNG
DISEASE, BLINDNESS, MENTAL
RETARDATION, ALCOHOLISM ARE
DISABILITIES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
appendix c
The following is from the righting the ADA Report of the National
Council on Disability (December 2004), PP. 11-27:
Executive Summary
Many Americans with disabilities feel that a series of negative
court decisions is reducing their status to that of ``second-class
citizens,'' a status that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was
supposed to remedy forever. In this report, the National Council on
Disability (NCD), which first proposed the enactment of an ADA and
developed the initial legislation, offers legislative proposals
designed to get the ADA back on track. Like a boat that has been blown
off course or tipped over on its side, the ADA needs to be ``righted''
so that it can accomplish the lofty and laudable objectives that led
Congress to enact it.
Since President George H.W. Bush signed the ADA into law in 1990,
the Act has had a substantial impact. The Act has addressed and
prohibited many forms of discrimination on the basis of disability,
although implementation has been far from universal and much still
remains to be done. In its role in interpreting the ADA, the judiciary
has produced mixed results. Led by the U.S. Supreme Court, the courts
have made some admirable rulings, giving effect to various provisions
of the Act. Unfortunately, however, many ADA court decisions have not
been so positive. This report addresses a series of Supreme Court
decisions in which the Court has been out of step with the
congressional, executive, and public consensus in support of ADA
objectives, and has taken restrictive and antagonistic approaches
toward the ADA, resulting in the diminished civil rights of people with
disabilities. In response to the Court's damaging decisions, this
report seeks to document and explain the problems they create and
advance legislative proposals to reverse their impact. NCD has
developed more extensive and detailed analyses of these issues in a
series of papers published under the title Policy Brief Series:
Righting the ADA Papers. The papers can be found at http://www.ncd.gov/
newsroom/publications/2003/policybrief.htm.
In an effort to return the ADA to its original course, this report
offers a series of legislative proposals designed to do the following:
(1) reinstate the scope of protection the Act affords, (2) restore
certain previously available remedies to successful ADA claimants, and
(3) repudiate or curtail certain inappropriate and harmful defenses
that have been grafted onto the carefully crafted standards of the ADA.
As this report was going to press, the Supreme Court issued its
decision in the case of Tennessee v. Lane, in which the Court upheld
provisions of Title II of the ADA, as applied, to create a right of
access to the courts for individuals with disabilities. The Lane ruling
certainly merits additional study, and NCD expects to issue future
analyses of the decision and the questions it leaves open. This report
does not attempt to address such issues.
The body of the report at times discusses alternative legislative
approaches to some of the problems it addresses. NCD has chosen,
however, to consolidate its preferred solutions to the various problems
into a single draft bill. The following represent the specific
legislative proposals made by NCD at this time for ``righting the
ADA,'' first described in a Section-by-Section Summary and then
presented as a proposed ``ADA Restoration Act of 2004.''
The ADA Restoration Act of 2004: Section-by-Section Summary
Section 1--Short Title
This section provides that the law may be cited as The ADA
Restoration Act of 2004 and conveys the essence of the proposal's
thrust, which is not to proffer some new, different rendition of the
ADA but, rather, to return the Act to the track that Congress
understood it would follow when it enacted the statute in 1990. The
title echoes that of the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, which
was passed to respond to and undo the implications of a series of
decisions by the Supreme Court, culminating in Grove City College v.
Bell, which had taken a restrictive view of the phrase ``program or
activity'' in defining the coverage of various civil rights laws
applicable to recipients of federal financial assistance. As with that
law, The ADA Restoration Act would ``restore'' the law to its original
congressionally intended course.
Section 2--Findings and Purposes
Subsection (a) presents congressional findings explaining the
reasons that an ADA Restoration Act is needed. It describes how certain
decisions of the Supreme Court have weakened the ADA by narrowing the
broad scope of protection afforded in the Act, eliminating or narrowing
remedies available under the Act, and recognizing some unnecessary
defenses that are inconsistent with the Act's objectives.
Subsection (b) provides a statement of the overall purposes of the
ADA Restoration Act, centering on reinstating original congressional
intent by restoring the broad scope of protection and the remedies
available under the ADA, and negating certain inappropriate defenses
that Court decisions have recognized.
Section 3--Amendments to the ADA of 1990
This section, and its various subsections, includes the substantive
body of the ADA Restoration Act, which amends specific provisions of
the ADA.
Subsection (a) revises references in the ADA to discrimination
``against an individual with a disability'' to refer instead to
discrimination ``on the basis of disability.'' This change recognizes
the social conception of disability and rejects the notion of a rigidly
restrictive protected class.
Subsection (b) revises certain of the congressional findings in the
ADA. Paragraph (1) revises the finding in the ADA that provided a rough
estimate of the number of people having actual disabilities, a figure
that a majority of the Supreme Court misinterpreted as evidence that
Congress intended the coverage of the Act to be narrowly circumscribed.
The revised finding stresses that normal human variation occurs across
a broad spectrum of human abilities and limitations, and makes it clear
that all Americans are potentially susceptible to discrimination on the
basis of disability, whether they actually have physical or mental
impairments and regardless of the degree of any such impairment.
Paragraph (2) revises the wording of the ADA finding regarding the
history of purposeful unequal treatment suffered by people with certain
types or categories of disabilities. Paragraphs (3) and (4) add a new
finding that incorporates a social concept of disability and
discrimination on the basis of disability.
Subsection (c) revises some of the definitions used in the ADA.
Paragraph (1) amends the definition of the term ``disability'' to
clarify that it shall not be construed narrowly and legalistically by
drawing fine technical distinctions based on relative differences in
degrees of impairment, instead of focusing on how the person is
perceived and treated. This approach rejects the medical model of
disability that categorizes people because of their supposedly
intrinsic limitations, without reference to social context and socially
imposed barriers, and to individual factors such as compensatory
techniques and personal strengths, goals, and motivation. The second
part, headed ``Construction,'' invalidates the Supreme Court's rulings
in Sutton v. United Airlines, Murphy v. United Parcel Service, and
Albertson's, Inc. v. Kirkingburg by clarifying that mitigating
measures, such as medications, assistive devices, and compensatory
mechanisms shall not be considered in determining whether an individual
has a disability.
Paragraphs (2) and (3) add definitions of the terms ``physical or
mental impairment,'' ``perceived physical or mental impairment,'' and
``record of physical or mental impairment'' to the statutory language.
These definitions are derived from current ADA regulations, and were
recommended for inclusion in NCD's original 1988 version of the ADA.
Subsection (d) clarifies that the ADA's ``direct-threat'' defense
applies to customers, clients, passersby, and other people who may be
put at risk by workplace activities, but, contrary to the Court's
ruling in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal, not to the worker with a
disability. The latter clarification returns the scope of the direct-
threat defense to the precise dimensions in which it was established in
the express language of the ADA as enacted.
Subsection (e) restores the carefully crafted standard of undue
hardship as the sole criterion for determining the reasonableness of an
otherwise effective accommodation.
Subsection (f) clarifies that ADA employment rights of individuals
with disabilities, including the opportunity to be reassigned to a
vacant position as a reasonable accommodation, are not to take a
backseat to rights of other employees under a seniority system or
collective bargaining agreement. In addition, covered entities are
directed to incorporate recognition of ADA rights in future collective
bargaining agreements.
Subsection (g) adds new subsections to the Remedies provision of
Title II of the ADA. The first restores the possibility of recovering
punitive damages available to ADA plaintiffs who prove they have been
subjected to intentional discrimination, an opportunity that was
foreclosed by the Supreme Court in Barnes v. Gorman. The second added
subsection underscores the fact that other remedies, but not punitive
damages, are available to ADA plaintiffs who prove that they have been
subjected to ``disparate impact'' discrimination. The third new
subsection establishes that intentionally refusing to comply with
certain requirements of Title II of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act,
including accessibility requirements, auxiliary aids requirements,
communication access requirements, and the prohibition on blanket
exclusions in eligibility criteria and qualification standards,
constitutes engaging in unlawful intentional discrimination.
Subsection (h) provides that the provisions of the Act are to be
liberally construed to advance its remedial purposes. To counter the
Court's ruling that eligibility for ADA protection should be
``interpreted strictly to create a demanding standard for qualifying''
(Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams), another
provision declares that the elements of the definition of
``disability'' are to be interpreted broadly. In addition, the
subsection provides that ``discrimination'' is to be construed broadly
to include the various forms in which discrimination on the basis of
disability occurs. The subsection adds provisions that direct the
attorney general, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the
Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations implementing the ``ADA
Restoration Act,'' and establish that properly issued ADA regulations
are entitled to deference in administrative and judicial proceedings.
Subsection (i) corrects the ruling of the Supreme Court in
Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Department of
Health and Human Resources, which rejected the catalyst theory in
determining eligibility of ADA plaintiffs to attorney's fees, by
reinstating the catalyst theory.
Section 4--Effective Date
This section provides that the Act and the amendments it makes
shall take effect upon enactment, and shall apply to cases that are
pending when it is enacted or that are filed thereafter.
The ADA Restoration Act of 2004: A Draft Bill
To amend the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 to
restore the broad scope of protection and the remedies available under
the Act, and to clarify the inconsistency with the Act of certain
defenses.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
Section 1.--Short Title.
This Act may be cited as the ``ADA Restoration Act of 2004.''
Section 2.--Findings and Purposes.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that----
(1) in enacting the ADA of 1990, Congress intended that the Act
``establish a clear and comprehensive prohibition of discrimination on
the basis of disability,'' and provide broad coverage and vigorous and
effective remedies without unnecessary and obstructive defenses;
(2) some decisions and opinions of the Supreme Court have unduly
narrowed the broad scope of protection afforded in the ADA, have
eliminated or narrowed remedies meant to be available under the Act,
and have recognized certain defenses that run counter to the purposes
of the Act;
(3) in enacting the ADA, Congress recognized that physical and
mental impairments are natural and normal parts of the human experience
that in no way diminish a person's right to fully participate in all
aspects of society, but Congress also recognized that people with
physical or mental impairments having the talent, skills, abilities,
and desire to participate in society are frequently precluded from
doing so because of prejudice, antiquated attitudes, or the failure to
remove societal and institutional barriers;
(4) Congress modeled the ADA definition of disability on that of
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which had to the time of
the ADA's enactment been construed broadly to encompass both actual and
perceived limitations, and limitations imposed by society; the broad
conception of the definition had been underscored by the Supreme
Court's statement in its decision in School Board of Nassau County v.
Arline, 480 U.S. 273, 284 (1987), that the Section 504 definition
``acknowledged that society's myths and fears about disability and
disease are as handicapping as are the physical limitations that flow
from actual impairment;''
(5) in adopting the Section 504 concept of disability in the ADA,
Congress understood that adverse action based on a person's physical or
mental impairment might have nothing to do with any limitations caused
by the impairment itself;
(6) instead of following congressional expectations that disability
would be interpreted broadly in the ADA, the Supreme Court has ruled,
in Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S.
184, 197 (2002), that the elements of the definition ``need to be
interpreted strictly to create a demanding standard for qualifying as
disabled,'' and, consistent with that view, has narrowed the
application of the definition in various ways;
(7) contrary to explicit congressional intent expressed in the ADA
committee reports, the Supreme Court has eliminated from the Act's
coverage individuals who have mitigated the effects of their
impairments through the use of such measures as medication and
assistive devices;
(8) contrary to the expectations of Congress in enacting the ADA,
the Supreme Court has rejected the ``catalyst theory'' in the awarding
of attorney's fees and litigation costs under the Act, and has ruled
that punitive damages may not be awarded in private suits under Section
202 of the Act;
(9) contrary to congressional intent and the express language of
the ADA, the Supreme Court has recognized the defense that a worker
with a disability could pose a direct threat to her or his own health
or safety;
(10) contrary to carefully crafted language in the ADA, the Supreme
Court has recognized a reasonableness standard for reasonable
accommodation distinct from the undue hardship standard that Congress
had imposed;
(11) contrary to congressional intent, the Supreme Court has made
the reasonable accommodation rights of workers with disabilities under
the ADA subordinate to seniority rights of other employees; and
(12) legislation is necessary to return the ADA to the breadth of
coverage, the array of remedies, and the finely calibrated balance of
standards and defenses Congress intended when it enacted the Act.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this Act are----
(1) to effect the ADA's objectives of providing ``a clear and
comprehensive national mandate for eliminating discrimination'' and
``clear, strong, and enforceable standards addressing discrimination''
by restoring the broad scope of protection and the remedies available
under the ADA, and clarifying the inconsistency with the Act of certain
defenses;
(2) to respond to certain decisions of the Supreme Court that have
narrowed the class of people who can invoke the protection from
discrimination the ADA provides, reduced the remedies available to
successful ADA claimants, and recognized or permitted defenses that run
counter to ADA objectives;
(3) to reinstate original congressional intent regarding the
definition of disability by clarifying that ADA protection is available
for all individuals who are subjected to adverse treatment based on
actual or perceived impairment, or are adversely affected by prejudiced
attitudes, such as myths, fears, ignorance, or stereotypes concerning
disability or particular disabilities, or by the failure to remove
societal and institutional barriers;
(4) to restore the full array of remedies available under the ADA;
(5) to ensure that the rights afforded by the ADA are not
subordinated by paternalistic and misguided attitudes and false
assumptions about what a person with a physical or mental impairment
can do without endangering the individual's own personal health or
safety;
(6) to ensure that the rights afforded by the ADA are not
subordinated to seniority rights of other employees in regard to an
otherwise vacant job position to which the individual requires transfer
as a reasonable accommodation; and
(7) to ensure that the carefully crafted standard of undue hardship
as a limitation on reasonable accommodation rights afforded by the ADA
shall not be undermined by recognition of a separate and divergent
reasonableness standard.
Section 3.--Amendments to the ADA of 1990.
(a) Discrimination.--References in the ADA to discrimination
``against an individual with a disability'' or ``against individuals
with disabilities'' shall be replaced by references to discrimination
``on the basis of disability'' at each and every place that such
references occur.
(b) Findings.--Section 2(a) of the ADA of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101(a))
is amended----
(1) by striking the current subsection (1) and replacing it with
the following:
``(1) though variation in people's abilities and disabilities
across a broad spectrum is a normal part of the human condition, some
individuals have been singled out and subjected to discrimination
because they have conditions considered disabilities by others; other
individuals have been excluded or disadvantaged because their physical
or mental impairments have been ignored in the planning and
construction of facilities, vehicles, and services; and all Americans
run the risk of being discriminated against because they are
misperceived as having conditions they may not actually have or because
of misperceptions about the limitations resulting from conditions they
do have;''
(2) by striking the current subsection (7) and replacing it with
the following:
``(7) some groups or categories of individuals with disabilities
have been subjected to a history of purposeful unequal treatment, have
had restrictions and limitations imposed upon them because of their
impairments, and have been relegated to positions of political
powerlessness in our society, based on characteristics that are beyond
the control of such individuals and resulting from stereotypic
assumptions not truly indicative of the individual ability of such
individuals to participate in, and contribute to, society;
classifications and selection criteria that are based on prejudice,
ignorance, myths, irrational fears, or stereotypes about disability
should be strongly disfavored, subjected to skeptical and meticulous
examination, and permitted only for highly compelling reasons;''
(3) by striking the period (``.'') at the end of the current
subsection (9) and replacing it with ``; and''; and
(4) by adding after the current subsection (9) the following new
subsection:
``(10) discrimination on the basis of disability is the result of
the interaction between an individual's actual or perceived impairment
and attitudinal, societal, and institutional barriers; individuals with
a range of actual or perceived physical or mental impairments often
experience denial or limitation of opportunities resulting from
attitudinal barriers, including negative stereotypes, fear, ignorance,
and prejudice, in addition to institutional and societal barriers,
including architectural, transportation, and communication barriers,
and the refusal to make reasonable modifications to policies,
practices, or procedures, or to provide reasonable accommodations or
auxiliary aids and services.''
(c) Definitions.--Section 3 of the ADA of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12102) is
amended----
(1) by striking the current subsection (2) and replacing it with
the following:
``(2) Disability.
``(A) In General.--The term ``disability'' means, with respect to
an individual----
(i) a physical or mental impairment;
(ii) a record of a physical or mental impairment; or
(iii) a perceived physical or mental impairment.
``(B) Construction.----
(i) The existence of a physical or mental impairment, or a record
or perception of a physical or mental impairment, shall be determined
without regard to mitigating measures;
(ii) The term ``mitigating measure'' means any treatment,
medication, device, or other measure used to eliminate, mitigate, or
compensate for the effect of an impairment, and includes prescription
and other medications, personal aids and devices (including assistive
technology devices and services), reasonable accommodations, or
auxiliary aids and services; and
(iii) actions taken by a covered entity because of a person's use
of a mitigating measure or because of a side effect or other
consequence of the use of such a measure shall be considered `on the
basis of disability.' ''
(2) by redesignating the current subsection (3) as subsection (6);
and
(3) by adding after the current subsection (2) the following new
subsections:
``(3) Physical or mental impairment.--The term ``physical or mental
impairment'' means----
``(A) any physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic
disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more of the
following body systems: neurological; musculoskeletal; special sense
organs; respiratory, including speech organs; cardiovascular;
reproductive; digestive; genito-urinary; hemic and lymphatic; skin; and
endocrine; or
(B) any mental or psychological disorder, such as mental
retardation, organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and
specific learning disabilities.
``(4) Record of physical or mental impairment.--The terms ``record
of a physical or mental impairment'' or ``record of impairment'' means
having a history of, or having been misclassified as having, a physical
or mental impairment.
``(5) Perceived physical or mental impairment.--The terms
``perceived physical or mental impairment'' or ``perceived impairment''
mean being regarded as having or treated as having a physical or mental
impairment.''
(d) Direct threat.--Subsection 101(3) of the ADA of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
12111(3)) is amended----
(1) by redesignating the current definition as part (A)--In
general; and
(2) by adding after the redesignated part (A) a new part (B) as
follows:
``(B) Construction.--The term ``direct threat'' includes a
significant risk of substantial harm to a customer, client, passerby,
or other person that cannot be eliminated by reasonable accommodation.
Such term does not include risk to the particular applicant or employee
who is or is perceived to be the source of the risk.''
(e) Reasonable accommodation.--Subsection 101(9) of the ADA of 1990
(42 U.S.C. 12111(9)) is amended----
(1) by redesignating the current definition as part (A)--Example s
of types of accommodations.; and
(2) by adding after the redesignated part (A) a new part (B) as
follows:
``(B) Reasonableness.--A reasonable accommodation is a modification
or adjustment that enables a covered entity's employee or applicant
with a disability to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment
or of a job application, selection, or training process, provided
that----
(i) the individual being accommodated is known by the covered
entity to have a mental or physical limitation resulting from a
disability, is known by the covered entity to have a record of a mental
or physical limitation resulting from a disability, or is perceived by
the covered entity as having a mental or physical limitation resulting
from a disability;
(ii) without the accommodation, such limitation will prevent the
individual from enjoying such equal benefits and privileges; and
(iii) the covered entity may establish, as a defense, that a
particular accommodation is unreasonable by demonstrating that the
accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the
business of such covered entity.''
(f) Nonsubordination.--Section 102 of the ADA of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
12112) is amended by adding after the current subsection (c) a new
subsection as follows:
``(d) Nonsubordination.--A covered entity's obligation to comply
with this Title is not affected by any inconsistent term of any
collective bargaining agreement or seniority system. The rights of an
employee with a disability under this Title shall not be subordinated
to seniority rights of other employees in regard to an otherwise vacant
job position to which the individual with a disability requires
transfer as a reasonable accommodation. Covered entities under this
Title shall include recognition of ADA rights in future collective
bargaining agreements.''
(g) Remedies.--Section 203 of the ADA of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12133) is
amended----
(1) by redesignating the current textual provision as subsection
(a)--In general ., and adding at the beginning of the text of
subsection (a) the phrase ``Subject to subsections (b), (c), and
(d),''; and
(2) by adding, after the redesignated subsection (a), new
subsections as follows:
``(b) Claims based on proof of in tent ional discrimination.--In an
action brought by a person aggrieved by discrimination on the basis of
disability (referred to in this section as an `aggrieved person') under
Section 202 of this Act, or under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794), against an entity covered by those provisions
who has engaged in unlawful intentional discrimination (not a practice
that is unlawful because of its disparate impact) prohibited under
those sections (including their implementing regulations), an aggrieved
person may recover equitable and legal relief (including compensatory
and punitive damages) and attorney's fees (including expert fees) and
costs.
``(c) Claims based on disparate impact .--In an action brought by
an `aggrieved person' under Section 202 of this Act, or under Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794), against an
entity covered by those provisions who has engaged in unlawful
disparate impact discrimination prohibited under those sections
(including their implementing regulations), an aggrieved person may
recover equitable relief and attorney's fees (including expert fees)
and costs.
``(d) Construction.--In addition to other actions that constitute
unlawful intentional discrimination under subsection (b), a covered
entity engages in such discrimination when it intentionally refuses to
comply with requirements of Section 202 of this Act, or of Section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794), or of their
implementing regulations, by willfully, unlawfully, materially, and
substantially----
(1) failing to meet applicable program and facility accessibility
requirements for existing facilities, new construction and alterations;
(2) failing to furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services;
(3) failing to ensure effective communication access; or
(4) imposing discriminatory eligibility criteria or employment
qualification standards that engender a blanket exclusion of
individuals with a particular disability or category of disability.''
(h) Construction.--Section 501 of the ADA of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12201)
is amended by adding after the current subsection (d) the following new
subsections:
``(e) Supportive construction.--In order to ensure that this Act
achieves its objective of providing a comprehensive prohibition of
discrimination on the basis of disability, discrimination that is
pervasive in America, the provisions of the Act shall be flexibly
construed to advance its remedial purposes. The elements of the
definition of ``disability'' shall be interpreted broadly to encompass
within the Act's protection all persons who are subjected to
discrimination on the basis of disability. The term ``discrimination''
shall be interpreted broadly to encompass the various forms in which
discrimination on the basis of disability occurs, including blanket
exclusionary policies based on physical, mental, or medical standards
that do not constitute legitimate eligibility requirements under the
Act; the failure to make a reasonable accommodation, to modify policies
and practices, and to provide auxiliary aids and services, as required
under the Act; adverse actions taken against individuals based on
actual or perceived limitations; disparate, adverse treatment of
individuals based on disability; and other forms of discrimination
prohibited in the Act.
``(f) Regulations implementing the ADA Restoration Act.--Not later
than 180 days after the date of enactment of The ADA Restoration Act of
2004, the attorney general, the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, and the Secretary of Transportation shall promulgate
regulations in an accessible format that implement the provisions of
the ADA Restoration Act.
``(g) Deference to regulations.--Duly issued federal regulations
for the implementation of the ADA, including provisions implementing
and interpreting the definition of disability, shall be entitled to
deference by administrative bodies or officers and courts hearing any
action brought under the Act.''
(i) Attorney's fees.--Section 505 of the ADA of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
12205) is amended by redesignating the current textual provision as
subsection (a)--In general, and adding additional subsections as
follows:
``(b) Definition of prevailing party--The term `prevailing party'
includes, in addition to a party who substantially prevails through a
judicial or administrative judgment or order, or an enforceable written
agreement, a party whose pursuit of a nonfrivolous claim or defense was
a catalyst for a voluntary or unilateral change in position by the
opposing party that provides any significant part of the relief sought.
``(c) Relationship to other laws----
(1) Special criteria for prevailing defendants--If any other Act of
Congress, or any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various
administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, or of any
judicial or administrative rule, which addresses the recovery of
attorney's fees, requires a defendant, but not a plaintiff, to satisfy
certain different or additional criteria to qualify for the recovery of
attorney's fees, subsection (b) shall not affect the requirement that
such defendant satisfy such criteria.
``(2) Special criteria unrelated to prevailing--If an Act, ruling,
regulation, interpretation, or rule described in paragraph (1) requires
a party to satisfy certain criteria, unrelated to whether or not such
party has prevailed, to qualify for the recovery of attorney's fees,
subsection (b) shall not affect the requirement that such party satisfy
such criteria.''
Section 4.--Effective Date.
This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect upon
enactment and shall apply to any case pending or filed on or after the
date of enactment of this Act.
endnotes
\1\ Courts Continuing Narrow Interpretation of ``Disability,'' Case
Study Shows, DISABILITY COMPLIANCE BULL. Mar. 27, 1997, at 10. See
also, Amy L. Allbright, ABA Special Feature: 2003 Employment Decisions
Under the ADA Title I--Survey Update, 28 MENTAL & PHYSICAL L. REP. 319,
320 (2004) (``A clear majority of the employer wins in this survey were
due to [the] employees' failure to show that they had a protected
disability.'').
\2\ 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101.
\3\ National Council on Disability, Equality of Opportunity : The
Making of the Americans with Disabilities Act at 184 (1997).
\4\ Statement by Vice President Al Gore, December 14, 1998, quoted
in the Presidential Task Force on Employment of Adults with
Disabilities, Working on Behalf of Americans with Disabilities:
President Clinton and Vice President Gore: Goals and Accomplishments at
17.
\5\ George W. Bush, Presidential Proclamation on the Anniversary of
the Americans with Disabilities Act, 2002 ( July 26, 2002 ).
\6\ NCD, Promises to Keep: A Decade of Federal Enforcement of the
Americans with Disabilities Act at 1 (2000).
\7\ NCD, Voices of Freedom: America Speaks Out on the ADA at 26
(1995).
\8\ NCD, Voices of Freedom: America Speaks Out on the ADA at 26
(1995).
\9\ George W. Bush, Presidential Proclamation on the Anniversary of
the Americans with Disabilities Act, 2002 ( July 26, 2002 ).
\10\ See Mary Crossley, ``The Disability Kaleidoscope,'' 74 Notre
Dame Law Review 621, 622 (1999).
\11\ Tudyman v. United Airlines, 608 F. Supp. 739 (C.D.Cal. 1984).
\12\ H.R. Rep. No. 101-485, pt. 3, at 30 (1990).
\13\ Morrow v. City of Jacksonville, 941 F. Supp. 816, 823 n. 3
(E.D.Ark. 1996).
\14\ See, e.g., Stone v. St. Joseph's Hospital of Parkersburg, 538
S.E.2d 389, 400-402, 404 (W.Va. 2000), in which the Supreme Court of
West Virginia, after acknowledging that the state law had been amended
in 1989 to adopt the federal three-prong definition of disability,
chose to reject the ``restrictive approach'' of federal interpretation
of the definition, endorsing an ``independent approach * * * not
mechanically tied to federal disability discrimination jurisprudence.''
The court also cited a number of cases from other states that had
interpreted the definition of disability more expansively than under
federal nondiscrimination laws. Id. at 405 and n. 23. Likewise, in
Dahill v. Police Department of Boston, 434 Mass. 233, 748 N.E.2d 956
(2001), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court embraced virtually
every argument advanced by disability rights advocates that the United
States Supreme Court had rejected in Sutton v. United Airlines, and
ruled that mitigating measures should not be considered in determining
whether an individual has a ``handicap'' under Massachusetts
antidiscrimination law. According to the Dahill Court, the public
policy underlying the antidiscrimination statute supported its
interpretation that mitigating measures should be excluded, while
embracing the Sutton standard would ``exclude[ ] from the statute's
protection numerous persons who may mitigate serious physical or mental
impairments to some degree, but who may nevertheless need reasonable
accommodations to fulfill the essential functions of a job.'' Id. at
240 and n. 10.
\15\ See, e.g., Granovsky v. Canada, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 703, in which
the Supreme Court of Canada expressly rejected the restrictive approach
of the U.S. Supreme Court in Sutton v. United Airlines, noted the
``ameliorative purpose'' and ``remedial component'' of the disability
nondiscrimination provision of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, and adopted an approach in which the focus is ``not on the
impairment as such, nor even any associated functional limitations, but
is on the problematic response of the [defendant] state to either or
both of these circumstances.'' The Court added that it was the alleged
discriminatory action ``that stigmatizes the impairment, or which
attributes false or exaggerated importance to the functional
limitations (if any) * * *'' Similarly, in Quebec v. Canada, [2000] 1
S.C.R. 665, the Supreme Court of Canada noted that ``[h]uman rights
legislation is [to be] given a liberal and purposive interpretation,''
and ruled, ``The objectives of the Charter, namely the right to
equality and protection against discrimination, cannot be achieved
unless we recognize that discriminatory acts may be based as much on
perception and myths and stereotypes as on the existence of actual
functional limitations. Since the very nature of discrimination is
often subjective, assigning the burden of proving the objective
existence of functional limitations to a victim of discrimination would
be to give that person a virtually impossible task. Functional
limitations often exist only in the mind of other people, in this case
that of the employer.'' The Court ruled that ``a `handicap,' therefore,
includes ailments which do not in fact give rise to any limitation or
functional disability.''
\16\ Some states, such as California and Rhode Island, have amended
their disability nondiscrimination statutes to reject federal case law
narrowing the scope of individuals protected. Others, such as
Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York have never adopted the rigid and
stringent concept of ``disability'' consisting of an ``impairment''
which ``substantially limits'' one or more major life activities. For a
discussion of state laws that have deviated from the restrictive
federal model, see NCD's paper titled Defining ``Disability'' in a
Civil Rights Context: The Courts' Focus on the Extent of Limitations as
Opposed to Fair Treatment and Equal Opportunity. Paper No. 6 of NCD's
Policy Brief Series: Righting the ADA Papers can be found at http://
www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/2003/policybrief.htm.
\17\ For example, the definition of disability provisions of
Australia's Disability Discrimination Act of 1992 (4.(1)) and of
Ireland's Employment Equality Act (1998) (2), both of which were
adopted after the ADA was enacted, are framed in very broad terms that
encompass not only a wide variety of currently existing conditions, but
also include any condition that previously existed but no longer does,
that ``may exist in the future,'' or that ``is imputed to a person.''
\18\ H.R. Rep. No. 101-485, pt. 2 at 52 (1990).
\19\ H.R. Rep. No. 101-485, pt. 3 at 28 (1990).
\20\ Todd v. Academy Corporation, 57 F. Supp. 2d 448, 453-54 (S.D.
Tex. 1999).
\21\ In light of the courts' failure to appreciate and apply the
social model of disability discrimination, NCD's Righting the ADA
report suggests that the social model should be made explicit by
incorporating it as an additional ADA finding as follows:
Discrimination on the basis of disability is the result of the
interaction between an individual's actual or perceived impairment and
attitudinal, societal, and institutional barriers; individuals with a
range of actual or perceived physical or mental impairments often
experience denial or limitation of opportunities resulting from
attitudinal barriers, including negative stereotypes, fear, ignorance,
and prejudice, in addition to institutional and societal barriers,
including architectural, transportation, and communication barriers,
and the refusal to make reasonable modifications to policies,
practices, or procedures, or to provide reasonable accommodations or
auxiliary aids and services.
Id. at 109.
\22\ Robert L. Burgdorf Jr. ``Substantially Limited'' Protection
from Disability Discrimination: The Special Treatment Model and
Misconstructions of the Definition of Disability, 42 VILLANOVA LAW
REVIEW 409 (1997).
\23\ Id. at 534-536 (footnotes omitted).
\24\ U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Accommodating the Spectrum of
Individual Abilities (1983), at p. 87.
\25\ See, for example, National Council on Disability, The
Americans with Disabilities Act Policy Brief Series: Righting the ADA,
No. 5, ``Negative Media Portrayals of the ADA'' at http://www.ncd.gov/
newsroom/publications/2003/policybrief.htm.
\26\ Accommodating the Spectrum of Individual Abilities, p. 95, n.
17).
\27\ Richard K. Scotch, Models of Disability and the Americans with
Disabilities Act, 21 BERKELEY JOURNAL OF EMPLOYMENT AND LABOR LAW 213,
214-15 (2000).
\28\ Linda Hamilton Krieger, Afterword: Socio-Legal Backlash, 21
BERKELEY JOURNAL OF EMPLOYMENT AND LABOR LAW 476, 480-81 (2000).
\29\ See, for example, National Council on Disability, The
Americans with Disabilities Act Policy Brief Series: Righting the ADA,
No. 5, ``Negative Media Portrayals of the ADA'' at http://www.ncd.gov/
newsroom/publications/2003/policybrief.htm.
\30\ National Council on Disability, Toward Independence, Appendix
of Topic Papers (1986) at pp. A-22 to A-23.
\31\ Righting the ADA at p. 109.
\32\ Id.
\33\ Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534
U.S. 184, 194 (2002).
\34\ H.R. REP. NO. 101-485, pt. 2, at 53 (1990).
\35\ S. REP. NO. 101-116 at 24 (1989).
\36\ Id.
\37\ H.R. REP. NO. 101-485, pt. 2, at 53 (1990); S. REP. NO. 101-
116 at 23-24 (1989); H.R. REP. NO. 101-485, pt. 3, at 30 (1990).
\38\ S. REP. NO. 116, 101st Cong., 1st Sess. 24 (1989) (emphasis
added).
\39\ Id.
\40\ Id.
\41\ H.R. REP. NO. 101-485, pt. 2, at 53(54 (1990).
\42\ H.R. REP. NO. 101-485, pt. 3, at 30 (emphasis added).
\43\ Id. at 30(31.
\44\ 29 C.F.R. ( 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) (1993). Similar definitions are
provided for accommodations in the job application process and in
regard to job benefits and privileges. 29 C.F.R. ( 1630.2(o)(1)(i)
(1993) (``Modifications or adjustments to a job application process
that enable a qualified applicant with a disability to be considered
for the position such qualified applicant desires''); 29 C.F.R. (
1630.2(o)(1)(iii) (1993) (``Modifications or adjustments that enable a
covered entity's employee with a disability to enjoy equal benefits and
privileges of employment as are enjoyed by its other similarly situated
employees without disabilities.'').
\45\ 29 C.F.R. 414(15 (app. to pt. 1630) (commentary on ( 1630.9)
(1993).
\46\ H.R. REP. NO. 101-485 pt. 2, at 65 (1990); S. REP. NO. 101-116
at 34 (1989).
\47\Id.
\48\ Id.
\49\ H.R. REP. NO. 101-485 pt. 2, at 66 (1990); S. REP. NO. 101-116
at 35 (1989).
\50\ 29 C.F.R. 414 (app. to pt. 1630) (commentary on ( 1630.9)
(1993).
\51\ Id.
\52\ 29 C.F.R. 414 (app. to pt. 1630) (commentary on ( 1630.9)
(1993); H.R. REP. NO. 101-485 pt. 2, at 66 (1990); S. REP. NO. 101-116
at 35 (1989).
\53\ 29 C.F.R. 414 (app. to pt. 1630) (commentary on (1630.9)
(1993); H.R. REP. NO. 101-485 pt. 2, at 66-67 (1990); S. REP. NO. 101-
116 at 35 (1989).
______
Mr. Andrews. Thank you, and I am certain in the dialogue
with the members there will be those opportunities.
I thank each of the four of you for excellent testimony.
Mr. McClure is not working as an electrician today at
General Motors because the court found he wasn't disabled. That
is the reason. A person with muscular dystrophy is not
disabled. Mr. Fram, you have acknowledged that people who
should have been protected by the law aren't, and that is a
problem. I appreciate that. It is a good point for us to start
our discussion. I want to explore the concerns that you have
raised about the remedial measures in Mr. Hoyer's legislation.
Your organization is thoroughly involved, you said, in
training and teaching people how to comply with this law. Is
that correct?
Mr. Fram. Yes.
Mr. Andrews. And you have done extensive writing. You said
23 editions of your book on this subject?
Mr. Fram. Yes.
Mr. Andrews. That is very impressive, and I am sure that as
part of that you have done extensive research on the case law
interpreting the ADA and on similar statutes around the
country. Is that correct?
Mr. Fram. Mostly the ADA.
Mr. Andrews. Okay. On page three of your testimony, you
talk about the specter of people raising claims because of
chipped tooth, the flu, broken finger. And you indicate that
that is the plethora of litigation that would flow if Mr.
Hoyer's bill were to be adopted. In my state of New Jersey for
nearly four decades we have had a very broad definition of
``disability.'' It does not limit the definition by
substantiality or any of the other criteria that you talked
about. Are you aware of any cases brought under the New Jersey
statute by someone who claims that a chipped tooth is a
disability?
Mr. Fram. I haven't researched the New Jersey statute.
Mr. Andrews. Your answer is you don't know because you
haven't researched it?
Mr. Fram. The New Jersey statute.
Mr. Andrews. Okay. California in 2000 adopted a very broad
definition of ``disability'' that to my understanding does not
have limitations based on substantiality. Are there any data
that would indicate that there has been this flood of
litigation from California?
Mr. Fram. California actually still does have--it has to
limit a major life activity. So they haven't totally dropped
the----
Mr. Andrews. But the California definition is much broader
than the definition of ``disability'' in the federal statute,
isn't it?
Mr. Fram. Absolutely.
Mr. Andrews. Well, there is one piece of data, and I wonder
if you would dispute it, that the percentage of discrimination
claims owing to disability in California is the same as it was
in the total universe before this new definition. In other
words, X percent of discrimination claims were based on
disability before this law, and it is still about X percent.
Now, if there was going to be this flood of litigation
because of a broader definition, wouldn't disability claims
make up a larger share of employment claims in California?
Wouldn't that have happened?
Mr. Fram. I honestly don't think there would be a flood of
litigation. The problem is----
Mr. Andrews. Contrary to what you just said?
Mr. Fram. I don't think there would be a flood of
litigation, but what there would now be is a brand new
responsibility for employers to have to provide reasonable
accommodation to somebody who comes in and says, ``I have a
stomach ache; I don't want to go to that meeting because I have
a stomach ache.'' Or, ``I need time off because of my chipped
tooth.''
Mr. Andrews. But your position, I think, then assumes that
employers would just do that, not dispute it and there wouldn't
be more claims resulting in court. Isn't that a little counter-
intuitive?
Mr. Fram. Smart employers do the right thing. The question
is, would this create a federal requirement that an employer
has to let somebody out of a meeting because of a stomach ache?
Mr. Andrews. I guess I just respectfully disagree with your
argument. It seems to me that your premise today is that a
broader definition of ``disability'' under federal law will
create more claims. And we have a broader definition of
``disability'' under California law and it didn't.
Mr. Imparato, do you have some comment on what California
and New Jersey have done?
Mr. Imparato. Well, I appreciate the point that you are
making. The ADA definition was taken from the Rehab Act. A
number of states have had broader definitions of
``disability.'' But the point is that the ADA creates a floor.
What we are trying to do with the ADA Restoration Act is
reestablish a floor that protects people with epilepsy,
diabetes and a whole host of conditions that have been
interpreted out. We are not aware of more litigation or
percentage-wise more litigation in states like New Jersey,
California, Maine, Washington state, that have broader
protection.
Mr. Andrews. Mr. McClure, what is it that General Motors
needed to do for you so that you could have done that job as an
electrician really well? What did they need to do?
Mr. McClure. They wouldn't have had to buy nothing. They
already had ladders there. They had all the lifts, everything.
All they had to do was put me to work.
Mr. Andrews. Didn't they actually test you, sort of on the
job, to do the job you were supposed to do and you passed the
test and got the job?
Mr. McClure. Yes, sir.
Mr. Andrews. Sounds pretty reasonable to me.
I thank the witnesses, and I would at this time turn to the
ranking member, Mr. McKeon, for questioning.
Mr. McKeon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, Mr. Fram, did you have something more that you
wanted to add about the response to Mr. Andrews's question
about New Jersey?
Mr. Fram. No. I did want to add that, of course, there are
all these other parts as well, like the disability-related
questions in medical exams. I mean, in the real workplace, what
supervisor doesn't say to an employee, ``how did you break your
leg,'' if the person comes in. And I don't think there can be
any dispute that changing the definition to mean ``any
impairment'' would make a question like that flatly illegal.
Now, question--Is that going to lead to litigation? Who
knows whether it is going to lead to litigation. So my point
is, whether or not there is going to be a plethora of
litigation, should it be a federal requirement, should it be a
federal prohibition that a supervisor couldn't say, ``do you
have a cold.'' Is it a federal requirement that an employee
would have to give somebody with an ear ache time off.
Now, of course, there is already the Family and Medical
Leave Act which covers serious health conditions. This would
essentially make the Family and Medical Leave Act irrelevant
for half of it, anyway--the part about the person's serious
health condition.
Mr. McKeon. I would like to ask--I am not an attorney, and
I know Mr. Andrews is. I know several of you are, and you could
probably debate this a long, long time. But what I would like
to ask is, I mean it seems incredulous to me that Mr. McClure
could be told they can't hire him because he has a disability
that precludes him from doing the job, and then when he sues on
that basis, they say, no, you don't have a disability.
How would you gentlemen, as attorneys, fix that without
having some unintended consequences that would go so far as
some of the things you are talking about, Mr. Fram?
Mr. Burgdorf. I think you fix it by going with the original
legislative history, which says that Sutton is wrong. The
Supreme Court was wrong in Sutton and Murphy and Kirkingburg.
Mr. McKeon. My understanding is, not being an attorney,
that the Supreme Court is the final word on the law.
Mr. Burgdorf. But you get to make the law. [Laughter.]
Mr. McKeon. So we write a law, and I have seen unintended
consequences come from laws that we have passed. So you would
suggest we rewrite the law and you would have some suggestions
as to how we would do it without incurring those unintended
consequences. Dr. Burgdorf?
Mr. Burgdorf. I think it is a great question. As I
understand Mr. Fram's testimony, he is sympathetic and
understanding about the issue of mitigating measures, but he
would like to limit the correction to that. For many people,
including Mr. McClure, it is not going to help him. This is not
a mitigating measures case, and many of the cases are not
mitigating measures cases.
Mr. McKeon. How would you fix it?
Mr. Burgdorf. That is the proposal that I am trying to
explain and defend, H.R. 3195. I think it is a very good fix.
Mr. McKeon. It is a perfect bill and no problems with it?
Mr. Burgdorf. No, not at all. In fact, if we can't get
people like you to agree or to buy into the approach that the
bill is proposing, then we are not going to get anywhere. But I
think properly explained, it is a good bill. Could it use some
tinkering? Sure.
Mr. McKeon. Let me tell you my concern. We have had some
bills that have come before us in this committee last year
where we really tried to make some little tinkering changes.
For instance, one of them was card check. We had 15 amendments,
and I think some of them were very good amendments. We did not
get one Democratic vote. We did not change one word in that
bill.
Now, it is not becoming law. They can't get it through the
Senate and the president wouldn't sign it. But my concern is,
given the environment that we have here now--I mean, to me it
is ludicrous that we can't fix a problem like this, that my
real concern is as we go through this process, this bill will
go exactly the way it is written right now, even though you
would say it is probably not perfect, and you are here as a
witness for the bill. You would maybe make some tinkering
changes. I would like to know what those are because I would
like to offer them as an amendment when we get to that process.
I would hope that there would be some real working
together, rather than just saying, oh, you know, this is on a
fast track and it is going to go and that is the way it is. And
then what will happen is it probably will not become law, and
we will end up with more of Mr. McClure's situations, and I
don't think any of us want that.
I don't think any of us want to have that kind of problem.
He should be working now, as far as I am concerned, for GM. It
is his life-long ambition. He could do the job. And to be told
that he can't do it because he is disabled, and then when he
takes it to court, the highest court in the land turns it down
because he is not disabled. It is crazy.
But I have real concern that there won't be a desire to
work together to really tinker around the edges to make it--I
don't think we would get a perfect bill--but to make it a
better bill.
Mr. Burgdorf. One of the things that I have always been
surprised and delighted about is how very bipartisan the ADA
and similar legislation has been in the Congress. The ADA
legislation passed every one of the five substantive committees
and on the floor, never by a vote of less than 90 percent in
favor. It is incredibly bipartisan.
Mr. McKeon. I would still like to have your suggestions to
tinker around the edges to make it better, and then see if we
are able to do that.
Mr. Andrews. The gentleman's time has expired.
I would say to my friend, the ranking member, that you and
Mr. Miller worked together with Mr. Castle and Ms. Woolsey and
others, and Mr. Kildee, to produce the Head Start bill that I
think was excellent. We all worked together to produce a
genetic discrimination bill which passed the House
overwhelmingly. It has run into some issues in the Senate, but
I think we can work together on that. And we can do the same,
and I hope that we would on this.
Mr. McKeon. Those are some great examples. I could list a
whole bunch that----
Mr. Andrews. Sure. I would say for the record that the only
perfect bills are those reported out by the Health
Subcommittee. [Laughter.]
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, Mr.
Kildee, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Kildee. I thank the chairman. I thank him for having
this hearing.
You know, I have held many jobs in my life. I have been a
letter-carrier. I have been a Latin teacher. I have been an
electrician. I have been a lawmaker. As a matter of fact, the
job that is probably the longest in my life has been lawmaker,
for 32 years. But I was an electrician, so I know quite a bit
about the responsibilities of being an electrician.
Let me--and Mr. McClure you may answer this, too--but I
will address it to Mr. Imparato and Mr. Burgdorf. It seems that
this is really, and we often overuse the word ``catch-22,'' but
it is kind of a catch-22 situation really situation here. It is
a classic example of catch-22. How would H.R. 3195 address this
problem? I mean, this man's life--he sold his house, moved to
Texas, and to have this absurdity, that has led to a great
injustice, afflict him? Maybe Mr. Imparato and Mr. Burgdorf, if
you could?
Mr. Imparato. Thank you for that question.
First, just on the catch-22 issue, you are exactly right.
When you have the kind of strict standard that the Supreme
Court has created around what is a disability, you end up
having to introduce a lot of evidence to meet that narrow
threshold that then can and will be used against you on the
issue that matters, which is whether you are qualified for the
position. And anything that you introduce to show that you are
qualified for the position can and will be used against you on
whether you are disabled enough to have a civil right.
So you are exactly right. It is a catch-22. And it is not a
catch-22 that existed under the Rehab Act, which was the
definition that Congress was modeling the ADA after.
H.R. 3195 would fix this problem by getting past the issue
of whether he is in the protected class very quickly. He has an
impairment, and you quickly get to the issue that matters,
which is, was he qualified for the position in question? To the
extent he was asked to do things that require accommodation,
were there reasonable accommodations that would allow him to do
the essential functions of the job? And if the employer was not
justified in denying him the position, the employer would lose.
But we never reached that issue because so much time was spent
trying to establish the existence of a disability.
So I think the catch-22 term is exactly the right term for
where the courts have brought us under the ADA.
Mr. Kildee. Mr. Burgdorf?
Mr. Burgdorf. The only thing I would have to add to that is
sometimes it is worse than a catch-22. Even if there were no
qualified concept in the ADA, you can't get past the proving
the disability. People have a very difficult, impossible time
meeting that burden. The fact is, I think the underlying
problem is a mis-assumption about disability, that a person
really is only disabled if somehow the condition has really
messed up their life. And most of us who have disabilities try
to deal with our lives and have successful lives and go on to
live what people would call ``normal lives.''
Then, when we are shocked to find out somebody is
discriminating against us, we want to be relieved from that. We
want to have the ADA to protect us. That idea that you have to
be really messed up is what the ADA definition has turned into.
It is not what Congress intended. It is not what President Bush
thought he was signing. It is not what those of us who worked
on the National Council on Disability's proposal that was
before, and was ultimately enacted by Congress and what we were
trying to do.
We were very clear that if you were discriminated against
based on a condition, that was enough. You have proven what you
have to prove, and then we can argue about whether it was
justified or not. We are not saying people with disabilities
are going to win all their cases, but they ought to at least
get in the courthouse door.
Mr. Kildee. I was present when President George H. Bush
signed this into law. It was a joyous occasion, and he was
expansive in his enthusiasm, and I think expansive in his idea
of how this should be interpreted. To have Congress pass a law
trying to find a reasonable remedy, a president signing it with
enthusiasm--this was truly a bit of strong bipartisan work
within the Congress, and the president joyfully signing this
bill.
And the court, in kind of a grand isolation, saying this
didn't apply to Mr. McClure's case was just, to my mind--
sometimes law should be refined common sense, I think. I don't
think it was very refined or very common sense in this instance
here.
Mr. Imparato. Can I say one more thing?
Mr. Andrews. Very briefly.
Mr. Imparato. Briefly, I just--in terms of the unintended
consequences, I just want to point out that whatever we do to
try to keep the definition somewhat narrow can also have
unintended consequences. That is why any PD feels that H.R.
3195 is a simple straightforward way to fix this problem. It
came from a lot of work from the National Council on
Disability, and any of these efforts to tinker with it, I would
just encourage us to worry about unintended consequences on the
other side, where the courts will jump on one word like they
have under the ADA, and we are back to having to come back and
fix a new problem that the courts have created.
Mr. Andrews. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Andrews. The chair recognizes the ranking member of the
subcommittee, my friend from Minnesota, Mr. Kline, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Kline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, gentlemen, for being here and for your
testimony.
I think what we are seeing is that there is widespread
agreement I believe on both sides of this aisle that we need to
change the law so that we don't have an incident such as we
have seen with Mr. McClure. I think, as Mr. McKeon and others
said, that is absurd. But I am concerned that in our effort to
make sure that doesn't happen to Mr. McClure or someone like
that, that we don't have those unintended consequences.
When the ADA was enacted in 1990, one of the first findings
included was that ``43 million Americans have one or more
physical or mental disabilities.'' So I am wondering what the
number would be. So let me start, Mr. Fram, I have about three
questions for you, and we will go as quickly as we can.
What do you think the language as it is now in this bill--
what would that number 43 million be?
Mr. Fram. Well, it would have to be 350 million, because
every single one of us has an impairment. I mean, every one of
us has either a vision problem--we don't have perfect vision--
or we have had the flu. Because remember, this covers actual
disability regarded as impairment, which is----
Mr. Kline. I appreciate the answer, but again, the original
intent, which the majority leader talked about, was to cover 43
million. And now in your interpretation, it is 350 million or
whatever the current population of the United States is, and
that was clearly not the original intent. So it raises the
question, if every worker has some form of disability, what
does that do for the workers who would truly need the
protection--Mr. McClure's example?
Mr. Fram. I think it would certainly limit an employer's
resources. Everybody agrees, I think everybody on this panel
would agree that Mr. McClure, under what I am proposing in
terms of reversing the Sutton case, that he would be covered.
I respectfully disagree with Dr. Burgdorf because I think
reversing Sutton would lead to Mr. McClure being covered
because you would be looking at somebody without mitigating
measures, which include behavioral modifications, and that was
the reason the lower court excluded him, because he could reach
certain heights if he used a ladder. At least that was my
reading of the case, but if you look at him without behavioral
modifications, he would be covered.
But what it would wind up meaning, if everybody was
covered, that the person who needs a modified schedule, for
example, because she has breast cancer, and if that modified
schedule has already been given to somebody who has the flu, it
might not be available for her. So it would restrict what an
employer could do for people who have serious conditions.
Mr. Kline. And have exactly the unintended consequence
which we are trying to avoid here. We are trying to make sure
that Americans with disabilities have the protection, and it
waters it down so that every American is there, it simply will
not be able to do that. While I have great faith in my chairman
and all lawyers who look at these things, it is our job to get
this language right, so it is not left to continuing battles in
the courts over the definition, a concern that all of you have
expressed. We really do need to get this right.
Continuing again, Mr. Fram. In your testimony, you noted
that H.R. 3195, the bill under consideration here, changes the
burden of proof with respect to claims of discrimination. Can
you take some time here to expand on that point? How is the
burden of proof allocated under other civil rights statutes?
How does that differ from H.R. 3195?
Mr. Fram. There is something called the McDonnell-Douglas
standard. That is where employees, as a prima facie case, have
to show they are in the protected group and that they are
qualified to do the job. And what this bill would do is to
change it in the ADA context to mean the employer now has the
burden of showing that the person cannot do the job.
I don't think from a practical perspective that makes
sense, because what courts have done--and honestly, I haven't
seen where there has been a problem with this, which is why I
am surprised that it is in the bill. What courts do is they say
to employers, ``you have the burden of showing what the
essential functions are,'' and then they say to the individual,
``you have the burden of showing you can do those essential
functions.''
That is allocating the burdens to the parties who have
access to the evidence. This bill would make it the opposite of
McDonnell-Douglas.
Mr. Kline. Thank you.
My time is just about to expire, but very quickly if I
could ask the flanking attorneys here what they think that 43
million would look like under this bill--just a shot.
Mr. Burgdorf. I would like to try to answer it because the
Supreme Court quoted my law review article in the Sutton case
about that issue as the explanation, and then completely
misunderstood and misused it. The 43 million figure was put
in--originally it was a 36 million figure--it was put in the
National Council on Disability draft bill, and was proposed and
put into its report, On The Threshold of Independence. And it
was intended not as who is covered by the ADA. There is nowhere
in the ADA or in that report that says that is how many people
are covered by the ADA. It was trying to give an order of
magnitude estimate of people with actual disabilities.
The definition has three prongs--actual, record, and
regarded as. No one had ever thought that 43 million people
were who were protected by the ADA, and that is important
because----
Mr. Kline. Excuse me. What do you think that number would
be--350 million?
Mr. Burgdorf. The ADA would under this legislation and
always has protected all Americans--not that all Americans have
a right to bring a suit. They are protected. It protects
associates of people with disabilities. It protects who
regarded as who are just mistakenly thought to have a
condition. Yes, all Americans are protected. Only some of them
are going to be subjected to discrimination and therefore can
go to court to do anything about it.
Mr. Kline. Thank you, professor.
Mr. Andrews. Thank you, Mr. Kline.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa, who has not
only policy insight, but personal insight on these issues, Mr.
Loebsack, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Another point, if I may elaborate on a personal nature on
all this, but at this moment in the interest of time, I will
refrain from that--but I want to thank all the panelists for
being here today as well. With the chair's permission, I do
want to enter a brief statement into the record on this matter.
I won't read that at the moment.
I do want to just address an issue related to veterans,
because you do say, Mr. Imparato, in your statement that you
submitted for the record, on pages 9, 10, and 11, you refer to
veterans who have returned and will be returning from the wars
in Iraq and Afghanistan--and not just those veterans, but
veterans of previous wars, too, who may be suffering from post-
traumatic stress disorder.
I am on the Armed Services Committee. As a freshman, I have
been fortunate enough, I guess if you can call it that, to go
to Iraq twice, and I just went to Afghanistan recently. We have
a Veterans Administration hospital in my district in Iowa City,
and I have visited that a number of times, as well as Walter
Reed.
If you could just elaborate on your reference to TBI and
PTSD in your testimony, and enlighten us a little bit on that.
But before you do that, I do want to express my desire, too, to
make sure that we come together in a bipartisan way to solve
this problem. I am really thankful to Ranking Member McKeon for
his comments, and Mr. Kline as well. I think everybody here
wants to resolve this problem, and it is a question of how we
are going to do it.
But if you could elaborate, and that is really the only
question I have. Maybe Mr. Burgdorf might want to comment as
well, if he has any thoughts. Thank you.
Mr. Imparato. Sir, thank you for that question, Congressman
Loebsack. The veterans who are returning from Iraq and
Afghanistan are going to have the same definition of
``disability'' that we are talking about here applied to them
if they experience employment discrimination. The veterans who
are recovering, who are functioning well either at home or in
the workplace will have that used against them on the issue of
whether they have civil rights protections.
This has dramatically affected people with psychiatric
disabilities. So veterans that have post-traumatic stress
disorder, depression, anxiety disorders--if they are able to
control those well, they are likely to be found not to have
disabilities for purposes of the ADA.
It can also affect people with brain injuries. Again, if
they are able to manage their disabilities and function well at
home and at work, lots of courts are likely to interpret what
the Supreme Court has done in a way that leaves them out. I
would argue that would be true even if we fix the mitigating
measures issue. This issue is bigger than simply fixing the
mitigating measures.
I agree with Professor Burgdorf that Carey McClure's
situation would not be addressed by simply fixing mitigating
measures. It was the Toyota v. Williams decision that really
severely restricted what constitutes a substantial limitation
and a major life activity. The court said that they had to be
activities that were of central importance to most people's
daily lives. That was invented by the court. That was not the
standard from Congress. It was not the standard under the Rehab
Act.
So again, veterans coming back--we want them to have full
lives. We want them to participate fully in all aspects of
society, and we want them to have civil rights protections if
they experience discrimination. The veterans who are
functioning at the highest level are the ones who are most at
risk of not having civil rights protections under the ADA.
Mr. Loebsack. Yes, Mr. Burgdorf?
Mr. Burgdorf. The only thing I would add is that win or
lose, the focus is on the wrong thing. These people with these
conditions are going to have to submit themselves to an
inquisition into the details of their disorders. When they
argue that they are being discriminated against--the employer
said that this is significant enough that I won't let you have
the job, or I am going to fire you. Focusing on the details of
their condition is invasive, unnecessary, and it is the wrong
question.
Mr. Loebsack. In just the little bit of time left. I mean
obviously it is difficult enough to serve ordinary folks who
don't go off and fight for our country to be going through this
process. I think it is far worse for those who are putting
their lives on the line to come back and face these kinds or
problems.
Thank you very much for your response. I appreciate it, and
I yield back the rest of my time. Thank you.
Mr. Andrews. Thank you. Mr. Sarbanes.
Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to the
panel. This is fascinating. Welcome, Mr. Imparato. We have
survived a number of piano recitals together.
I am just fascinated by the court's mischief in this area,
and how they have managed a 180-degree turnabout in terms of
what was intended with the original legislation. I view the
removal of the ``substantial limitation'' component, the
definition, as trying to neutralize that opportunity for
mischief in some ways and widen the ledge of protection, again,
in ways it can't be chipped away at so much that it just
completely gives way.
I assume that once that component is removed, the
``substantial limitation'' piece of it--that the court will set
to work on the threshold definition of ``impairment.'' I would
be curious, Dr. Burgdorf, on what you think they will do there.
And then if you could expand beyond and take me through the
chipped tooth scenario, so I can understand how much that is a
red herring, which I view it as, or not. I mean, how does the
chipped tooth case get started, and how does it proceed along
the line?
Mr. Burgdorf. What none of us has mentioned today is that
H.R. 3195 adopts a definition of ``impairment'' that is based
upon existing regulations that as far as I know, no one on
either side of any issue has argued is not valid. It goes back
to the original section 504 regulations. It requires a
physiological disorder, which is medical terminology. It is
not--I hesitate to disagree with my friend, Mr. Fram--but it
doesn't apply to things like baldness. I would think a person
would have an incredibly hard time arguing that a chipped tooth
is a disorder, any more than my ugly face is an disorder.
These are attributes of people. They are not disorders. And
there is no precedent anywhere that I have ever heard of, and I
have written my big fat book about the meaning of the
definition of ``disability,'' too, and I have never heard of a
chipped tooth case. I don't think that is a valid concern. I
think maybe Mr. Fram should consider being a law professor,
because we spend a lot of time dreaming up weird hypotheticals.
I think that that is all this is. It is a red herring.
In fact, many of the examples that are used go toward the
same issue, which is that people have to have an impairment.
That is defined. And if people want a reasonable accommodation,
they have to show that the impairment prevents them from doing
a job task. That is what the EEOC regulations have always said.
Reasonable accommodation is not a wish list for people with
disabilities. It is designed for a purpose. It is to remove
something that is keeping that person from performing a job. A
person with a cough is ordinarily not going to be able to show
that.
The bigger problem is that employers get to pick what they
think is serious, and then throw people out of the workplace.
At that point, we would like to say they have discriminated
against a person. That person is entitled to file a claim. They
may not win the claim, but they can file the claim. That is
what H.R. 3195 does, and I am very comfortable in saying that
it is not going to lead to all these horrible weird
consequences.
Mr. Sarbanes. Do you want to respond to that?
Mr. Fram. I think it is just not correct. ``Impairment'' is
very broad. I have cited cases in the written testimony where
courts have said things like a sprained knee, erectile
dysfunction, tennis elbow--all of these things are impairments.
What keeps them from being covered disabilities is that they
don't substantially limit major life activities.
I would also disagree with Mr. Imparato that major life
activity has been a great problem, because courts have been
very, very broad in terms of what our life's major activities
are, including things like sex, which courts have said are
major life activities. So it doesn't have to relate to the job.
Mr. Sarbanes. In that case, in the chipped tooth case, does
litigation begin with an employer discriminating based on the
chipped tooth? That is what I am asking.
Mr. Fram. I don't think it would begin with that. It would
be if the person says ``I want time off,'' and I am entitled to
time off under federal law, to go get my tooth fixed.
Mr. Sarbanes. It just strikes me that those are implausible
starting points for the litigation that you are raising the
specter of.
I have run out of time. I just wanted to say to you, Mr.
McClure, thank you for your testimony. I loved your quote where
you said that the reasonable accommodation that could have been
given to you would have simply been to put you to work. So
stick with it. Thank you.
Mr. Andrews. Thank you, Mr. Sarbanes.
The chair is pleased to recognize my friend from New
Jersey, Mr. Payne, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Payne. Thank you very much.
Let me thank the panel for coming. I had the opportunity to
be involved when the original ADA legislation was passed, and
went around with Justin Dart. He was really quite a person. He
invited the committee to Houston, Texas in the late 1980s. It
was interesting, as you know, Houston has a large number of
disabled people because the land is relatively flat and in the
old days before mechanized wheel chairs, it made it a lot
easier. The weather was better. You didn't have snow. So there
were a lot of things that made it more of a natural place where
people with a disability would go.
But it was interesting--Justin was very clever. He invited
the committee to a baseball game, the Houston Astros or
something, and of course you would probably have a violation
today--the ticket only cost about $10, but you know, with the
new laws you can't take a ticket. Anyhow, what he did, though,
was we went to the area where he got tickets for people that he
knew, and it was in the handicapped section. I think he did it
cleverly because it was the worst place in the stadium. It was
stuck up somewhere under some beams where you couldn't even sit
straight and you couldn't hardly see the field. It was just a
horrible situation.
However, evidently, you know, when people did public
accommodations, they made it, well, let us throw this little
space up in the corner in the dark in the back for those
people, you know, and they ought to be glad we got a little
place. So I think it was a very interesting, subtle way that he
had to do this thing.
The other thing I remember clearly was, you know, some of
the, particularly the Greyhound Bus Company, said, oh, we are
going out of business and there won't be another Greyhound bus
that will be able to stay on the road because the cost is going
to be enormous and we can't afford it and all that. Of course,
you know, Greyhound buses kept running ever since. I don't know
if they are still running, but ADA certainly did not put them
out of business.
And also this question about the ramp, when people said,
``we will try to do a ramp if we can.'' This was talked about.
The sky was falling or businesses were going out of business--
we can't afford to do it. And you found that the average ramp
at a little place, at that time, it cost about $50 to put in.
So I think that we find ourselves creating much more of a
hysteria when we try to correct injustices than it is really
worth. I would hope that we--and I know Mr. McKeon talked about
opening up and people with real disabilities won't be able to
be serviced because you are going to have so many additional
folks, so that is why we shouldn't do this. Well, I think that
water seeks its own level. I think that if we make the
adjustments, we will be able to handle it like we did before.
If we need more resources, then we should simply go about
getting more resources.
I just would like to once again commend you, Mr. McClure,
for coming and telling us your story. In your opinion, do you
think you could have done the job just as well as any other
electrician?
Mr. McClure. I was doing the work when I went there, and I
was doing the work after I left there.
Mr. Payne. As a matter of fact, I have noticed in some
instances that working with some people I worked with, I
actually was sort of a plant director at a small plant. We had
about 40 employees. So the forklift operator was deaf, so they
said, ``you can't hire Leon. You know, he can't hear.'' I said,
``well, he can drive the forklift all right, and he is very
careful. It is going to be up to the employees, as they should
anyway, to be sure that they observe the safety regulations.''
If you back up, it makes noise. If you go forward, you can see
it.
And don't you know that our record on safety so far as the
forklift was better than it was ever because everyone knew
that, you know, many times people will yell at the forklift
operator to say ``hey, I am here'' or something. So since they
knew that Leon couldn't hear, they had to make sure that they
were out of the way. And everybody was extra careful because
you couldn't say, ``well, he didn't hear me.'' It worked out
perfectly. We had the best safety record. He did the job
fantastically.
So if you work with people that have disabilities, I think
that you find, in my opinion, that you even get an employee who
really puts more into the effort. They work hard. They really
do, in my opinion, more to show that they are just as equal as
a person without a disability. So I think it was General
Motors' loss certainly.
I guess I didn't really get a chance to ask my question,
but I did want to reflect on that.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Andrews. Thank you, Mr. Payne.
The chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr.
Wilson, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank all of you for being here today.
I particularly am happy to receive additional information
about the Americans with Disabilities Act. A dear friend of
mine, actually my campaign chairman, Landon Whitehead, was
present at the White House when the bill was signed. He has
been a champion in our state for persons with head injuries. So
over the years, I am really grateful for what has been done and
can be done.
Additionally, my late brother-in-law was a victim of a
sniper at Okinawa, and was in a wheelchair for the balance of
his life. I know it would have been so wonderful if he could
have had the benefits that have come legitimately from this
law. I thank all of you for being here.
Mr. Fram, a question for you. Many advocates have argued
that claims of discrimination under the ADA should be treated
exactly the same as, say, claims of race or sex discrimination
under Title VII, or claims of age discrimination under the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act. That notion has appeal,
particularly if the ADA is identical in scope to Title VII and
the Age Discrimination Act. Is that the case? If not, can you
tell us how does the ADA differ from other civil rights laws?
Mr. Fram. Well, that is exactly the problem that I have
been pointing out, is that the ADA is different from Title VII,
not in the general discrimination part, because it would be
easy if you just said you can't discriminate against somebody
because they have an impairment. That is easy. The hard part is
that the ADA also requires reasonable accommodation.
So the ADA puts a federal requirement on an employer to
reasonably accommodate, unless it causes an undue hardship. In
this case, it would put that requirement on an employer who has
somebody who has--I will get away from the chipped tooth
example and use the flu. Nobody could dispute the flu is a
disorder.
So do you have to reasonably accommodate somebody with the
flu? Would you have to provide a modified work station for
somebody with a sprained ankle? Of course you have to provide a
modified work station for somebody who has paraplegia, but for
somebody with a sprained ankle--that would turn this into a
federal requirement.
The other things that it does--and I won't repeat myself
with the medical examinations and inquiries--but that is a
really serious part, that it prohibits disability-related
questions of employees unless they are specifically about the
job. Title VII doesn't do that.
ADA also has certain insurance provisions. The EEOC has a
guidance dealing with disability-based distinctions in
insurance provisions. If disability equals impairment, that
means a lot of policies that, for example, might differentiate
between dental coverage and medical coverage, could be suspect
under this law. So there is a lot of additional requirements
that ADA imposes that Title VII does not.
Mr. Wilson. Additionally, how does ADA address issues of
safety in the workplace? Do you have any concern of how H.R.
3195 might change that treatment?
Mr. Fram. Well, the ADA has a provision dealing with direct
threat--that an employer can only screen someone out if,
because of his disability, he poses a direct threat, a
significant risk of substantial harm. The problem that has come
up in the courts over the past--really over the past year--has
dealt with conduct issues and whether an employer can enforce
its conduct rules.
Specifically, there has been--even conduct rules concerning
safety--there was a case out in the Ninth Circuit, which is
generally the West Coast, that dealt with an employee who had
bipolar disorder, who in the words of the court, the Ninth
Circuit, said had engaged in violent misconduct in the
workplace. This is a Ninth Circuit case. We are not talking a
lower-level case. And the court said you had to provide
reasonable accommodation to her.
What is the accommodation you are supposed to give to
somebody who engages in violent misconduct in the workplace? So
in that sense, I think the ADA was not intended to interfere
with an employer's right to have conduct rules concerning
safety, but the way it has been interpreted by some courts, in
the same way that we have been talking about some of the really
conservative decisions, there are some decisions like this that
say you might have to accommodate violent misconduct. That, in
my opinion, would need to be corrected.
Mr. Wilson. Again, I thank all of you for being here, and I
yield the balance of my time.
Mr. Andrews. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
The chair recognizes the gentlewoman, the chairperson of
the Workforce Standards Subcommittee, Ms. Woolsey, for 5
minutes.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you, Mr. Andrews.
First of all, I would like to recognize that Dr. King
Jordan from Gallaudet University is here with us today.
Mr. Andrews. Welcome, doctor.
Ms. Woolsey. He brought reasonable accommodations, as you
can see--his interpreters, and how important that is in order
for him to do what he does, so he can hear what we are doing
today. So there is a good example.
You know, I am really thankful that we have brains like
yours, Chairman Andrews, and many of the other brains that have
spoken before me today that will talk about H.R. 3195 and the
details, because I get all caught up in statements like chipped
teeth and baldness and having the flu. I am a 20-year human
resources professional. A person that has the flu is
accommodated. You don't want them in the factory or in the
workplace, period. That is human relations.
Yes, indeed, every company has problem employees who try to
take advantage of everything. That is the exception. It is not
the rule, and it is something as a manager, a supervisor, a
human resources person, you deal with. It has nothing to do
with ADA. And when you, Mr. Fram, talked about accommodating
baldness, that did it for me. [Laughter.]
What does--I mean, you too are going to be middle-aged
someday, men--what you do is, you know, you start losing your
hair. What in the world would that have to do with anybody's
job and any kind of accommodations? I mean, that threw me for a
loop. That was a horrible example. If you are willing to tell
me what you think would be a reasonable accommodation that
would relate to your sitting here talking to us and being an
expert in your own way, I would be glad to hear it, but I don't
get it.
Mr. Fram. Well, I completely agree with you that it should
have nothing to do with the ADA, because the ADA should cover
people with serious conditions, not somebody with a sprained
ankle. Now, in the workplace, of course, I would never ask for
accommodation because of my hair impairment.
Ms. Woolsey. I hope not. [Laughter.]
Mr. Fram. Some people find it nice. [Laughter.]
Mr. Andrews. We are not going any further on that.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Fram. The sprained ankle, though, if somebody were to
say, ``I want a modified work station because of my sprained
ankle,'' the question would be: Is that person entitled to this
as a federal mandate, entitled to a modified work station
because of a sprained ankle? And that can't be what Congress
intended.
Certainly, it intended to cover people who have paraplegia
or a veteran returning home with no legs. Of course, it is
intended to cover that. But is it intended to cover somebody
with a sprained ankle or the flu?
Ms. Woolsey. Well, I am going to let Dr. Burgdorf, Mr.
McClure, and Mr. Imparato answer that question. What does that
mean for our discussion today? Let me start with you, Mr.
Imparato.
Mr. Imparato. Thank you.
I think Professor Burgdorf did a good job of explaining how
the reasonable accommodation analysis happens under the ADA.
The employee is not entitled to time off for anything they want
time off for. They are entitled to an accommodation that
enables them to do the essential functions of the job. So
getting time off for hair treatment is not going to enable you
to do the essential functions of the job.
I just briefly want to also touch on this issue about the
ADA's protections on health disparities. The EEOC guidance that
David Fram cited was a 1993 guidance. We have case law from
1999 where the courts have very narrowly interpreted what the
ADA requires in the area of health care. They said it is okay
to have a separate cap for AIDS-related illnesses than you have
for other illnesses. They said it is okay to have different
coverage for mental disabilities around disability insurance.
They said it is okay not to cover hearing aids.
All those have been challenged under the ADA and failed. So
I don't see how having a broader definition is somehow going to
invite a lot more health disparity cases because we are not
successful under the current law with the cases that have gone
forward.
Ms. Woolsey. Mr. McClure, would you like to--I mean, a
sprained ankle?
Mr. McClure. I have worked with a sprained ankle.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Woolsey. I will bet you have.
Mr. McClure. Your tolerance from the pain of a sprained
ankle is nothing to compare with the pain I am in all the time.
Ms. Woolsey. Right.
Mr. McClure. I would like to note that I agree with you
fully. Most Americans are not going to try to do the things
they are saying, with chipped teeth, flu. Most of us want to
work just like everybody else. Thank you.
Ms. Woolsey. Thank you.
Dr. Burgdorf?
Can he, Chairman Andrews?
Mr. Andrews. Yes, very briefly. Thank you.
Mr. Burgdorf. The issue is in the wording that Mr. Fram
used, of ``serious'' and who decides that it is serious. The
ADA has a standard for reasonable accommodation. A person with
a sprained ankle or any other thing that we might think of as
minor will have to show that it interferes with the performance
of an essential job function. If it does, then it is not that
the person gets whatever he or she wants. It is that employers
then enter into a dialogue about ``what do I need to do.''
It might be the employer says the accommodation is go home.
It might be the employer says ``put some ice on it and get back
to work.'' There are any number of possible accommodations, and
the employer gets to pick, unless they are not effective or
unreasonable. The person with the disability has to accept it.
Mr. Andrews. Thank you very much.
The gentlelady's time has expired.
The chair recognizes the gentlelady from Hawaii, Ms.
Hirono, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to thank the panel.
I agree that the ADA needs remedial legislation and should
be broadly interpreted to support the group of people that it
was intended to help. I think in these cases, whoever bears the
initial burden of proof often is the person who gets to go
forward and proves his or her case. It seems as though this
initial burden of having to show substantial limitation pretty
much kicks out so many people from ever moving forward that we
don't even get to the question of reasonable accommodation or
whether or not that person could do the job.
So what this bill does is to eliminate that initial burden,
and then, as Mr. Fram says, I take it that we then get to this
question of whether or not the person could do the job, and it
shifts the burden to the employer.
I would like to ask Mr. Imparato and Mr. Burgdorf whether
you believe that this burden-shifting is an undue burden or
somehow an unfair burden on the employers.
Mr. Imparato. Well, thank you for that question. I think
one of the things that Mr. Fram has argued and a number of
employers have argued is that this statute is somehow changing
an employee's burden to show that they are qualified, that they
meet the basic functions of the position. That was not the
intent of the legislation.
Title VII does not require you--it doesn't say in the
statute that you have to be a qualified woman or a qualified
minority in order to have protection under Title VII. But it
has been read--the prima facie case under Title VII has been
read to include that you have to show you meet the basic
qualifications.
Our intent with ADA Restoration is to follow that. We took
out the word ``qualified'' because it didn't appear in any
other civil rights law, but the intent is to have the same kind
of burden-shifting that you would have under Title VII. And
that seems to work fine for employers.
So the answer to your question is no, I don't think this
would create an unfair burden for employers.
Mr. Burgdorf. At the time the ADA was enacted, and this is
reflected in some of the committee reports, there were cases
under Section 504 dealing with the issue of burden of proof.
What they essentially said is that the person with the
disability has to come forward first with evidence that he or
she satisfies the basic announced job qualifications. You may
have to have a degree. You may have to have a license, a
driver's license if the job involves driving.
A person with a disability comes forward, shows that he or
she meets the employer's announced qualification standards,
then the burden shifts and the employer can argue, ``well,
despite that, you can't really do the job.'' Then ultimately
the burden would be on the employer. The person with the
disability, meeting the announced criteria, should be presumed
okay until, if and when the employer comes back and proves
disqualification.
That has gotten quite muddled in the interim. It appears
that people with disabilities are going to have to prove they
meet essential job functions when the employer knows what the
essential job functions are, and the factors that go into
determining job functions, as specified in the regs, are all
things the employer knows. How much time has to be spent on
this; what will happen if this function isn't performed--those
are all things within the expertise of the employer.
So H.R. 3195 moves the word ``qualified'' out of the first
part of the statute. It leaves it in the statute. In fact, it
is in there three times. This will take out one. It is
specifically stated as a defense on employers. Therefore,
ultimately if the employer wants to argue that you can't do the
job, the employer is going to have to show that, despite the
person having already shown that he or she meets the
qualification standards that were announced.
Ms. Hirono. So this bill would require an initial prima
facie showing by the plaintiff, and then the burden shifts to
the employer to show that the person is not qualified. So it is
really a burden-shifting kind of thing that the initial burden
is still on the plaintiff, and then it shifts to the employer.
Is that how you are interpreting this bill?
Mr. Burgdorf. That is how I interpret it.
Ms. Hirono. Okay. Thank you.
I yield back the rest of my time.
Mr. Andrews. I thank the gentlelady for her questions.
At this time, I would yield to the ranking member of the
subcommittee for any concluding remarks he may have to make,
Mr. Kline.
Mr. Kline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, thanks to all for being here today, and Mr. McClure,
for your touching personal testimony. I couldn't help but
notice in the last series of questions that the lawyers at the
table, we had two nodding their heads up and down and one
shaking his head left and right. So this battle of lawyers is
very common here, and in fact on this committee.
What we want to do as we look to make sure that Mr.
McClure--his case, his issue--is adequately covered here, that
we do this in a way that doesn't dilute the act itself in such
a way that it works counter to what we would like to see done.
We would like to get to the point where we have all lawyer
heads nodding. It may never happen, but we would like to get a
lot closer to that than I think we are here.
Again, I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony.
We are looking forward to the tweaks or whatever it takes to
get some more of those heads nodding.
I yield back.
Mr. Andrews. Mr. Kline, thank you.
We thank all of our colleagues.
I want to extend my appreciation to each of the witnesses.
Mr. Imparato and Mr. Fram and Dr. Burgdorf I think really gave
us excellent, well-reasoned arguments that the committee will
take into deliberation.
And Mr. McClure, I just want to say to you how important
what you have done today is. I think there is a universal
conclusion here that what happened to you is unfair and wrong.
And unfortunately because it has already happened, there is not
much that the committee can do to address your specific case
because that is the way our system works. But you have done
something that exceeds your own self-interest and you have done
something very important for the men and women of your country
by calling your case before us so we can fix it, so that what
happened to you does not happen to other people.
I think the way to fix it--I think the record is pretty
clear that the court has confused the question of who has a
disability with the question of what should be done in response
to that disability. When the court has identified circumstances
where it is uncomfortable in the kind of accommodations it
thinks might happen, it has chosen to deal with the situation
by defining out of the definition of ``disability'' people who
ought to be protected. I think that is a core problem here that
we have to address, and I believe that Mr. Hoyer and Mr.
Sensenbrenner's bill does.
Mr. McClure said a lot of very compelling things today, but
I think the best thing, Mr. McClure, that you said was, ``most
people just want to work.'' It is not about battle of the
lawyers. I am also appalled by battle of the lawyers. It is
contrary to everything I believe in. It is not about statutory
interpretation. It is about a decent man or woman who wants to
earn a paycheck for his or her family and do the job.
I think what we always have to keep in mind here, as Mr.
Kline just said, is how would anything we do affect you, Mr.
McClure, and people like you, but also a broader question. When
Mr. McClure was denied his rightful opportunity to excel in his
job, it is not just that he suffered or that, frankly, General
Motors suffered. The whole economy suffered because a talented,
hard-working person was left out of the process.
You don't win when you don't put your best people on the
field. It is something that the New York Giants will probably
find out on Sunday. [Laughter.]
Sorry, for all my fellow New Jersey friends.
But if you don't put your best people on the field, you
don't win. I think one of the main purposes of the Americans
with Disabilities Act is to make sure that we always put our
best team on the field. And we do not say, well, you are okay,
but you have some condition that makes us look at you a little
bit differently, and we don't want your talent. In a global
competition as fierce as the one in which we find ourselves, we
can't afford to say to any person that we can leave their
talent out.
So Mr. McClure, we are sorry that your talents were left
out. You can tell those grandchildren I know that you are so
proud of that their grandfather did something very significant
by coming here and telling his story and helping convince us,
which I think you have done, to work together and solve this
problem.
So we thank everyone for their participation. Members will
have 7 days to submit additional materials for the hearing
record. Any member who wishes to submit a follow-up question in
writing to the witnesses should coordinate with the majority
staff also within 7 days.
Again, we thank everyone for their participation. Without
objection, the hearing is adjourned.
[The statement of Mr. Courtney follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Joe Courtney, a Representative in Congress
From the State of Connecticut
Chairman Miller, Representative McKeon--thank you for convening
this hearing today. Majority Leader Hoyer, I want to thank you for
bringing this issue forward. I know that you have been involved with
the ADA for nearly 20 years, and you were instrumental in working to
initially craft it in a bipartisan and bicameral manner.
Ultimately, the intent of the ADA has been restrained; instead, the
courts have limited its scope. Too many people are being denied their
civil rights and denied coverage intended under the Act.
Most people never reach the threshold of whether they have been
discriminated against; rather they are being forced to prove they are
truly disabled.
It is not simply an injustice; it also has economic consequences.
It impacts a person's ability to earn a living, contribute to one's
family, save for retirement and attend college.
I have heard from an organization established at Yale--the Center
for Dyslexia and Creativity. A dedicated group of individuals led by Dr
Sally Shaywitz are working on the issue of Dydlexia and how it impacts
education and employment. Former Congressman Sam Gejdenson, Former FCC
Chairman Reed Hundt and Steven Spielberg have joined her in this quest.
I know the Chairman and Representative Andrews listened to her
passionate testimony linking brain function mapping and dyslexia.
Those with dyslexia may sometimes be granted additional testing
time in normal educational settings but they are rarely given time when
they need to take medical, law, graduate or college entrance exams
which all impact their future employment and professional lives.
And so--thank you for convening this important hearing. I
cosponsored this important civil rights bill. And I ask unanimous
consent to enter testimony by Dr. Shaywitz into the Record.
______
[The statement of Dr. Shaywitz follows:]
Prepared Statement of Dr. Sally Shaywitz, Audrey G. Ratner Professor of
Learning Development, Yale University School of Medicine
I am Dr. Sally Shaywitz, the Audrey G. Ratner Professor of Learning
Development at the Yale University School of Medicine where I am Co-
Director of the Yale Center for the Study of Learning, Reading and
Attention, and, of the newly formed Yale Center for Dyslexia &
Creativity. I am a member of the Institute of Medicine of the National
Academy of Sciences and serve on the National Board of the Institute of
Educational Sciences.
A developmental pediatrician by training, I became concerned with
the devastating impact of a reading disability on otherwise highly
intelligent, and often gifted boys and girls who experienced an
unexpected difficulty learning to read. Although dyslexia is often
referred to as a ``hidden disability,'' the negative impact of the
disorder on every aspect of a person's life became readily apparent as
I followed these children and young adults and their families over
time. And so I became deeply concerned about the impact of this
disability on the lives of the children and resolved to learn more
about this puzzling disorder that was stealing the joy of childhood
from so many children, and worse, not allowing them as young adults to
realize their often very high potential.
Over the past two decades, my colleagues and I have investigated
the epidemiology, cognitive mechanisms, and most recently, the
neurobiological basis of dyslexia. At Yale, I see or review the
requests of students at all levels of the University, undergraduate,
graduate, and professional schools who request accommodations for a
learning disability.
I am here today because I am concerned that the current
interpretations of the ADA are preventing otherwise deserving young men
and women from entering college, graduate and professional schools, and
then, professions--all of which are dependent on how well a student
scores on the pervasive gate-keeper, high stakes examinations, for
example, SAT; LSAT, MCAT, USMLE, the Bar Exam, certifying and licensing
examinations for every medical specialty, nursing, financial services
and many more. I have personally seen increasing numbers of deserving
young men and women with clear histories of dyslexia, who with
incredible effort and determination and reasonable accommodations,
mostly the provision of additional time on exams, succeed in school
but, who are then turned down for accommodations by standardized
testing agencies and boards precisely because they have succeeded and
their performance is compared to a standard of the average person.
Clearly, using comparison to the average person for determination
of a learning disability violates the fundamental tenets of a learning
disability which is based on an intra-individual disparity, that is, a
disparity existing within a person--between a person's intellectual
ability and his/her achievement, and not on how a person compares to an
external measure--the average person. By judging a learning disability
by comparison to the average person and not based on the individual's
own potential, all brighter than average learning disabled students are
summarily excluded from receiving the accommodations they require to
achieve their potential. In practical terms, this means not being
admitted to law, medical or nursing school and these professions
because of artificially low scores on high stakes exams so that the
exam reflects that person's disability rather than his or her ability.
Without accommodations, these tests cannot and do not reflect the LD
person's knowledge or aptitude. The effect is for the average person
standard to restrict the rights of bright LD students and set limits,
essentially, a ceiling on their future jobs and careers.
The past decade has seen an increase in the understanding of the
nature of learning disabilities such as dyslexia, by far the most
common LD, and, an increase in the provision of educational services,
both instructional and accommodations that allow students to succeed
and begin on the road to realizing their potential. And so, it is
particularly cruel that these extraordinarily hardworking students, who
are the original 24/7 folks and are at the verge of realizing their
potential and their dreams, are artificially prevented from doing so.
These young men and women have climbed the mountain, and now, when they
are about to reach the peak, suddenly they are knocked down and
prevented from reaching their earned and deserving goal. Time after
time, I have witnessed LD students turned down and penalized for their
hard work just because they have succeeded, with the interpretation
that academic success (achieved with accommodations) precludes a
diagnosis of LD and eligibility for accommodations under the ADA. As a
result, students are placed in a Kafkaesque Catch-22: they succeed
because of their intellect, hard work, and provision of accommodations
which they received only because they are LD. However, for the very
success in school that they have achieved and that makes them eligible
for further study, particularly in graduate and professional schools,
and for certification and licensure, they are penalized and denied
accommodations on gate-keeper exams (e.g., GMAT, MCAT, USMLE, LSAT, bar
exam) preventing access to professions.
A major and important difference between the ``average'' person and
the LD person is that the provision of accommodations will have a
significant impact on the LD person's performance, but not the average
person's performance. We often hear, ``wouldn't everyone benefit if
they had extra-time?'' The answer is a clear and unequivocal no!
Results of scientific studies now provide undeniable evidence that only
LD students increase their scores significantly when provided with
extra-time, and what's more there is now definitive neurobiological
evidence of the need for extra-time by dyslexic students.
Scientific studies comparing the performance of LD and nonLD
college students with and without extra-time demonstrate, for example,
that while nonLD students score at the 82nd percentile without extra-
time, they score at the 83rd percentile with additional time. Scores of
nonLD students remain essentially unchanged; providing extra-time to
nonLD students makes virtually no difference.
What about LD students? Here we see a significant and substantial
increase in scores, evidence of the difference extra-time makes for LD
students. In this study, LD college students scored in the 13th
percentile without extra-time, and with extra-time, scores increased
substantially from the 13th percentile to the 76th percentile; a
significant difference. Extra-time for LD students levels the playing
field, precisely reflecting the intentions of the ADA.
Today, in 2008, it is possible to show you actual brain images
obtained during functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) that
provide clear and compelling neurobiological evidence of the absolute
need for extra-time for dyslexic students. fMRI allows us to literally
peer into the living brain as a person reads and we can see which brain
systems are used by typical or average readers in contrast to dyslexic
readers.
What have we learned? Typical readers light up--activate three
neural systems on the left side of the brain, one in the front of the
brain and two in the back. One of these systems, we and others have
shown, is essential for rapid, fluent automatic reading that is
effortless. In dyslexic readers, this neural circuit (aptly named the
wordform area) that is responsible for automatic, rapid reading remains
silent, fails to activate preventing these impaired readers from
reading fluently, that is, rapidly and automatically. Dyslexic readers
compensate by developing other systems in other areas of the brain;
however, these systems provide only partial compensation. They allow
the dyslexic reader to read relatively accurately, but not
automatically, that is, rapidly. Consequently dyslexic readers remain
slow, nonautomatic readers across their lifetime. Thus, with great
effort and effective reading instruction, dyslexics can learn to read
words accurately, but not rapidly. In contrast, peers learn to read
both accurately and automatically (rapidly). Slow, effortful reading
persists and characterizes dyslexic readers at all ages. As a result of
this neurobiological disruption, dyslexics require extra-time in order
to demonstrate their knowledge and to level the playing field. Without
protection of the ADA (i.e., a denial of additional time), a dyslexic
person performs below his/her ability and the high stakes test becomes
a measure of a dyslexic person's disability bringing with the denial a
barrier impeding access to jobs and careers. Critically, brain imaging
has made a hidden disability and its consequences visible. There now
exists a neural signature for dyslexia and scientific proof of the need
for extra-time for dyslexic students.
From a neuroscience perspective, dyslexic readers show a persistent
disruption in the specific neural system for rapid, automatic reading;
nondyslexic readers have an intact system. This is demonstrated by the
figures below:
Neural system (word form area, shown in yellow) for automatic,
rapid reading is impaired in dyslexia; other areas provide compensation
for accuracy, but not for speed.
And so, we now know that if you are a non-dyslexic reader, you use
the word-form area well, you look at a word and you're on the express
highway to reading. Look at the word and instantly you know it and can
read it. But, if you are a dyslexic, that express route is blocked and
you have to get off and take another ancillary, secondary ``country''
road--it's circuitous, and it's bumpy. And so its slower and you have
to work a lot harder; it will get you to your destination but it takes
a lot longer. Just as a diabetic requires insulin, a dyslexic has a
physiologic need for extra-time.
To summarize, the evidence is now clear; accommodations are
critical to assure fairness and equity to students who are LD.
Currently, standardized testing agencies are denying large numbers of
dyslexic students extra time. This discriminatory practice has
significant negative consequences for the futures of these students.
Today, standardized tests are the gate-keeper to the future: access to
college, graduate and professional study, job certification all share a
dependence on performance on these high-stakes tests.
Denial of accommodations to LD students represents particularly
cruel discrimination, for it penalizes those with the most potential,
those who have struggled throughout school, given up much of their
childhood, worked the hardest to achieve academically and did so with
provision of accommodations. And now these incredibly hardworking,
deserving dyslexic students are being told because they have achieved
academically, they are not eligible for protection of the ADA, closing
the door on years of effort and dedication and preventing access to
higher education and future jobs.
Why should we care? I believe, and I think you will too, that
denying LD students extra-time goes against the intent of the ADA,
scientific evidence, and hurts not only the students, but harms our
society as well through the loss of human capital that could contribute
substantially to our nation's well-being.
I will leave you with one example. Dr. Toby Cosgrove is recognized
as perhaps the finest cardiothoracic surgeon in the world; he led the
Cleveland Clinic Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery to greatness,
achieving number one status in US News & World Report's rankings year
after year. His over 20 patents have saved countless lives and given
better lives to hundreds, if not thousands, of others. The frightening
fact is that Toby Cosgrove came very close to never becoming a doctor.
Dr. Cosgrove is dyslexic.
When I visited with him and lectured with him at the Cleveland
Clinic, I heard him speak movingly to the hushed crowd of his
difficulties in school in learning to read and his memories of the
tutors who tried to teach him to read. Reading remained a ``big
problem'' for Dr. Cosgrove. For young Toby, college meant nonstop work.
``All I did was study, even on weekends. While everyone else was
partying or going to the movies or sports events, I packed my suitcase
and left campus for home where I studied all weekend.'' Reflecting his
slow reading, standardized testing was a disaster for him, not at all
reflecting his potential, but rather his dyslexia. A particular problem
was the impact of his slow, nonautomatic reading on the Medical College
Admissions Test, the MCAT. It seemed doubtful that Cosgrove would ever
fulfill his dream of becoming a doctor. In fact, he was accepted at
only one of the 13 medical schools to which he applied, and rejected
from 12 out of 13, because of the impact of his slow reading on the
gate-keeper test that allows or bars access to medical school and to
becoming a physician.
The frightening thought is that not only would Toby Cosgrove have
been denied the dream he worked so hard to achieve; society would have
been deprived of the substantial, lasting benefits of his inventions
and patents that have saved so many lives and given so many people
better lives. The question I leave you with is how many other potential
Toby Cosgroves are we in danger of losing because of denial of proven
to be necessary accommodations for dyslexic students? Let us weigh,
would it be worth it to give this man extra-time not to lose him and
his contributions? Thank you.
______
[The statement of Mr. Fortuno follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Luis G. Fortuno, a Representative in
Congress From the Territory of Puerto Rico
Chairman Miller, Ranking Member McKeon, I would like to thank you
both for holding this critical hearing as we move towards
reauthorization of the American with Disabilities Act. As the sole
representative of 4 million U.S. citizens on the Island of Puerto Rico,
it is my will that we come together today and find a way to settle our
differences and ensure passage of this critical piece of legislation.
Coming together is the only way to make sure we protect the civil
rights of the sector of the population that needs us the most.
During my years in Congress I have always been a strong advocate
for the right of those with disabilities. In my district alone there
are approximately nine hundred thousand U.S. citizens who suffer from
an impediment, eighty percent of which are unemployed. Puerto Rico is
losing out on the contributions these individuals have to offer to our
society. The fact is that the reauthorization of this legislation would
be a critical factor in changing these numbers for the better but only
if amended. It is my belief that the current language of the bill is
too broad and instead of protecting, it could hurt those it was
originally intended to protect.
I would like to express my support for the reauthorization of this
bill and trust that through this hearing and through open dialogue we
will find a consensus that will ultimately benefit our constituents
with disabilities.
Thank you Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon for allowing me
to speak about this critical issue.
______
[The statement of Ms. Woolsey follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Lynn C. Woolsey, a Representative in
Congress From the State of California
Everyone deserves equal access and opportunity to live, learn, and
work, without fear that they will somehow be denied that opportunity
because of the color of their skin or whether they have a disability.
Since the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1991,
we have worked to end discrimination. However, we still have a long way
go to ensure that all disabled Americans are treated fairly.
No person with a disability should be prevented from pursuing the
job of his or her choice if fully capable of doing the work required of
them. A person with a disability shouldn't be punished for trying to
find ways to manage his or her disability in order to live the best
possible life. However, because of the way the courts have defined
disability, employers have been allowed to discriminate against some
disabled employees.
The ADA Restoration Act, H.R. 3195, would amend the ADA's
definition of disability to cover all the people Congress originally
intended to protect and would prevent courts from disqualifying people
from coverage under the law because of the narrow definition of a
disability or for mitigating factors, such as eyeglasses and
medication. The ADA was passed to ensure that all people with
disabilities have equal access and opportunities and it is high time
that we bring back its original intent. It's a matter of doing what's
right.
______
[Additional submissions of Mr. Andrews follow:]
[The statement of the ACLU follows:]
Prepared Statement of the American Civil Liberties Union
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) applauds the House
Education and Labor Committee for holding this hearing on the Americans
with Disabilities Act (``ADA'') Restoration Act of 2007 and appreciates
the opportunity to submit a statement for the record. The ACLU also
wishes to thank Representatives Hoyer (D-MD) and Sensenbrenner (R-WI)
and Chairman Miller (D-CA) for their important leadership in
championing this key legislation.
The ACLU is a nonpartisan public interest organization dedicated to
protecting the constitutional rights of individuals. The ACLU consists
of hundreds of thousands of members, activists, and 53 affiliates
nationwide. The ACLU has pursued pioneering work in disability rights
for over 35 years. A highlight in this long record was the ACLU's
leadership role in securing passage of the Americans with Disabilities
Act (``ADA'') in 1990.\1\ In addition, the ACLU has participated in
landmark disability litigation including Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S.
624 (1998);\2\ Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999);\3\
Chevron, USA, Inc. v. Mario Echazabal, 122 S. Ct. 2045 (2002).\4\
In 1990 Congress passed the ADA with overwhelming bipartisan
support, creating a landmark civil rights law that improved the lives
of millions of people with disabilities. In passing the ADA, Congress
advanced the goals of ensuring equal opportunity, full participation,
independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for all people with
disabilities.\5\ The purpose of the ADA was to ``provide a clear and
comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination''
on the basis of disability, and ``to provide clear, strong, consistent,
enforceable standards'' for addressing such discrimination.\6\
Unfortunately 17 years after enactment of the ADA, the promise of
equal opportunity in employment has gone unfulfilled to many people
with disabilities due to a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions that
have narrowed the definition of disability under the ADA contrary to
Congressional intent. This has resulted in the exclusion of many
persons whom Congress intended to protect including people with cancer,
epilepsy, diabetes, hearing loss, multiple sclerosis, HIV infection,
intellectual disabilities, post traumatic stress syndrome, and many
other impairments. The ACLU believes that an individual has the right
to be judged on the basis of her or his individual capabilities, not on
the presumed characteristics and capabilities that others may attribute
to those who share a particular impairment. The court decisions have
created an unintended Catch-22 where individuals taking medication or
using other mitigation measures to manage their condition may no longer
qualify as ``disabled'' under the ADA. Thus those individuals
diligently managing their condition may be denied reasonable
accommodations or be terminated, without ever being able to present the
merits of their case in court.
The ACLU supports the ADA Restoration Act of 2007 (H.R. 3195) as a
necessary fix to this Catch-22 problem. The ADA Restoration Act
restores Congress's original intent in extending discrimination
protections to all people with disabilities, regardless of mitigating
measures, who are discriminated against because of their disability.
The ACLU encourages its passage in order to guarantee equal protection
for all people, regardless of disability.
endnotes
\1\ Chai Feldblum, former legislative counsel with the ACLU, served
as a lead legal advisor to the disability and civil rights communities
in the drafting and negotiating of the ADA.
\2\ The ACLU wrote an amicus brief in Bragdon which addressed
whether individuals with asymptomatic HIV and AIDS were covered under
the protections of the ADA. Available at http://www.aclu.org/scotus/
1997/22683lgl19980201.html.
\3\ The ACLU wrote an amicus brief in Sutton, arguing that the ADA
was intended to be applied broadly to protect individuals with
disabilities from discrimination in the workplace. Available at http://
www.aclu.org/scotus/1998/22639lgl19990222.html.
\4\ The ACLU wrote an amicus brief in Echazabal, arguing that an
employer violates the ADA when refusing to hire an individual on the
basis of her or his disability. The ACLU further argued that allowing
individuals to decide what risks--physical, social, or otherwise--she
or he is willing to take is at the very core of a person's civil
rights. Available at http://www.aclu.org/images/asset--upload--
file411--21954.pdf.
\5\ See 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101(a)(8).
\6\ See Americans with Disabilities Act Sec. 2(b), 42 U.S.C. Sec.
12101(b) (2007).
______
[The statement of the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law
follows:]
January 29, 2008.
Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law Urges Congress to Pass the
Americans With Disabilities Restoration Act
The Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law commends
the House Education and Labor Committee for holding today's hearing
concerning a much-needed measure--the Americans with Disabilities
Restoration Act. This legislation is needed to correct federal courts'
misinterpretations of the ADA and ensure that the protections that
Congress enacted in the ADA are in fact available for all people with
disabilities.
The Bazelon Center is a nonprofit organization that provides
assistance and representation to individuals with mental disabilities.
For three decades, the Center has engaged in policy advocacy and
precedent-setting litigation that has opened up public schools,
workplaces, housing and other opportunities for people with mental
disabilities to participate in community life.
Almost eighteen years ago, President George H.W. Bush signed the
Americans with Disabilities Act into law. This landmark legislation was
the first comprehensive national civil rights law for individuals with
disabilities, intended by Congress as a broad mandate barring
discrimination against all people with disabilities and ensuring access
to the mainstream of American life. As he signed the law, President
Bush stated: ``Let the shameful walls of exclusion finally come
tumbling down.''
The ADA has had a tremendous impact on the lives of people with
disabilities, opening up many doors that were previously closed and
enabling them to participate fully in many aspects of life. The Supreme
Court, however, has misconstrued the scope of the ADA's protections and
held that it covers a far narrower group of individuals than Congress
intended. The Court's decisions have created a ``Catch 22'' for people
with disabilities: many have lost their jobs because of their
disability, but their employers have successfully argued that these
individuals are not disabled enough to be protected by the ADA. This
was not Congress's intent in passing the ADA.
We urge Congress to act promptly in passing this legislation to
restore the rights of all Americans with disabilities to be free from
unwarranted disability-based discrimination.
Very truly yours,
Robert Bernstein,
Executive Director.
______
[The statement of the United Jewish Communities follows:]
January 28, 2008.
Prepared Statement of the United Jewish Communities
Dear Member of Congress: As concerned Jewish organizations
committed to protecting the rights of people with disabilities, we urge
Congress to pass the ADA Restoration Act of 2007 (H.R. 3195/S. 1881).
This bill is essential to protect people with disabilities from
discrimination and to correct the rollback of civil rights which has
occurred since the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) in 1990. In advance of the tomorrow's hearing in the Education
and Labor Committee, we encourage you to support this crucial piece of
legislation.
The ADA promised to be a vital means of protecting the livelihoods
of people with disabilities who faced discrimination. Since the
enactment courts have narrowed the definition of disability to the
point that the law often harms the very individuals it was designed to
protect. The ADA Restoration Act would attempt to close loopholes in
the ADA's workplace provisions by clearly redefining the term
``disability'' to apply to any individual with a real or perceived
physical or mental impairment. The definition of disability, which
would restore clear Congressional intent, would ensure that individuals
with conditions such as epilepsy, diabetes, hearing loss, learning
disabilities, or psychiatric disabilities who utilize ``mitigating
measures'' such as prescription drugs, prosthetics, and hearing aids,
will be protected under the legislation. To encourage the courts to
stop construing disability legislation narrowly in a way that defies
the spirit of the law, the bill states that its provisions should be
broadly construed to advance their remedial purpose.
The Torah teaches us that the stamp of the Divine is present in
each of us, regardless of physical or mental ability. Exodus 4:10-11
reads, ``But Moses said to the Lord, `Please, O Lord, I have never been
a man of words, either in times past or now that You have spoken to
Your servant; I am slow of speech and slow of tongue.' And the Lord
said to him, `Who gives man speech? Who makes him dumb or deaf, seeing
or blind? Is it not I, the Lord?' '' Furthermore, Jewish tradition
teaches us of our obligation to ensure equal access for all people and
to help facilitate the full participation of individuals with
disabilities in our communities. As we read in Leviticus 19:14, ``You
shall not insult the deaf, or place a stumbling block before the
blind.''
The right to earn a livelihood without fear of discrimination is
one that should be unquestionably granted to all Americans, regardless
of physical or mental disability. We urge you to show your support for
equal rights by co-sponsoring and supporting the ADA Restoration Act of
2007. If you have any questions about the legislation or this letter,
please contact Kate Bigam at (202) 387-2800 or Amy Aarons Rosen at
(202) 736-5871.
Sincerely,
The Union for Reform Judaism,
United Jewish Communities.
And the following organizations:
national
American Conference of Cantors,
American Jewish Committee,
Anti-Defamation League,
Association of Jewish Aging Services of North America,
Association of Jewish Family & Children's Agencies,
B'nai B'rith International,
Central Conference of American Rabbis,
International Association of Jewish Vocational Services,
Jewish Council for Public Affairs,
Jewish Reconstructionist Federation,
KESHER: URJ College Department,
Men of Reform Judaism,
National Council of Jewish Women,
North American Federation of Temple Youth,
The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism,
Women of Reform Judaism,
Yad HaChazakah--The Jewish Disability Empowerment Center, Inc.
state
Massachusetts Association of Jewish Federations,
Ohio Jewish Communities,
Wisconsin Jewish Conference.
local
Bronstein Jewish Family Service (Southbury, CT),
Council for Jewish Elderly (Chicago, IL),
Greater Bridgeport Section, NCJW, Inc. (Greater Bridgeport, CT),
JEVS Human Services (Philadelphia, PA),
Jewish Child and Family Services (Chicago, IL),
Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington (Greater
Washington, DC),
Jewish Community Relations Council of the Jewish Federation of Southern
Arizona (Tucson, AZ),
Jewish Family and Community Services (Jacksonville, FL),
Jewish Family and Children's Service of Greater Boston (Boston, MA),
Jewish Family & Children's Service of Minneapolis (Minneapolis, MN),
Jewish Family and Children's Services of San Francisco, the Peninsula,
Marin and Sonoma Counties (San Francisco, CA),
Jewish Family and Children's Services of the East Bay (Berkley, CA)
Jewish Family and Vocational Service (Louisville, KY),
Jewish Family Service (Houston, TX),
Jewish Family Service (San Diego, CA),
Jewish Family Service (Wilkes-Barre, PA),
Jewish Family Service of Buffalo & Erie County (Buffalo, NY),
Jewish Family Service of Seattle (Seattle, WA),
Jewish Family Service of the Desert (Palm Springs, CA),
Jewish Family Services (Danbury, CT),
Jewish Family Services of York (York, PA),
Jewish Federation of Broward County Community Relations Committee
(Broward County, FL),
Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia (Philadelphia, PA),
Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago (Chicago, IL),
Jewish Vocational Service and Employment Center (Chicago, IL),
Jewish Vocational Service of MetroWest (East Orange, NJ),
Jewish Vocational Services of the San Francisco Bay Area (San
Francisco, CA),
Metropolitan Council on Jewish Poverty (New York, NY),
Milwaukee Jewish Council for Community Relations (Milwaukee, WI),
National Council of Jewish Women, St. Louis Section (St. Louis, MO),
National Council of Jewish Women, Brooklyn Section (New York, NY),
Partnership for Jewish Life and Learning (Greater Washington, DC),
Ruth Rales Jewish Family Service (Boca Raton, FL),
Shaare Tefila Congregation (Silver Spring, MD),
Sinai Health System (Chicago, IL),
Syracuse Jewish Family Service, Inc. (Syracuse, NY),
The Keshet Organization (Chicago, IL),
The Amit Program, Inc. (Atlanta, GA),
UJA-Federation of NY (New York, NY).
______
[The statement of the Disability Policy Collaboration
follows:]
------
[The statement of the Epilepsy Foundation follows:]
January 29, 2008.
Epilepsy Foundation Commends House Education and Labor Committee on ADA
Restoration Act Hearing
The Epilepsy Foundation, the national voluntary agency solely
dedicated to the welfare of the three million people with epilepsy in
the U.S. and their families, commends the U.S. House Committee on
Education and Labor for holding a hearing on the ADA Restoration Act of
2007 (H.R. 3195). The Foundation also commends the leadership and
vision of Committee Chairman, George Miller (D-CA) and Ranking Member
Howard P. ``Buck'' McKeon (R-CA).
In a series of decisions issued beginning in 1999, the Supreme
Court effectively denied persons with a broad range of serious, but
treatable, health conditions protection from discrimination in the
workplace. The Court ruled that if the condition can be managed through
the use of ``mitigating measures,'' such as medication, prosthetics or
the use of devices, the individual will be viewed as too functional to
have a disability and will be denied the ADA's protection against
employment discrimination. People with a broad range of disabilities--
including epilepsy, diabetes, cancer, multiple sclerosis, depression,
bipolar disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, HIV, missing limbs and
intellectual and developmental disabilities--have been found not to be
``disabled'' under the ADA. The Supreme Court has shifted the focus
away from an employer's alleged misconduct and onto whether an
individual can first meet a ``demanding standard for qualifying as
disabled.''
This creates an absurd Catch-22 which allows employers to say a
person is ``too disabled'' to do the job but not ``disabled enough'' to
be protected by the law. People are being unfairly denied a job or
fired because an employer mistakenly believes they cannot perform the
job--or because the employer does not want ``people like that'' in the
workplace. The case is thrown out of court without the individual ever
having the chance to show he or she is qualified for the position.
Here is a description of just a few of the many, many individual
workers with epilepsy whom the lower courts have denied ADA protection:
A merchandize stocker who experienced weekly seizures and
had memory problems as a result of antiseizure medication: In
discussing the impact of the seizures, the court concluded that the
effects of the seizures were not substantial enough because they
``only'' lasted 10 to 15 seconds and occurred ``only'' weekly. Because
the court found that the individual was not covered under the ADA, it
did not rule on whether the individual was able to do the job, but it
did note in passing that ``there is no indication that he is unable to
perform the functions of his job as a result of his epilepsy or that he
creates a dangerous situation in the workplace or any place else.''
A production line worker with uncontrolled nocturnal and
daytime seizures: The nocturnal seizures occurred once or twice a week
and caused severe sleep loss; the daytime seizures, though less
frequent, caused shaking and loss of awareness, along with some memory
loss. These impairments, the court found, were not substantial enough
to qualify for protection.
A laborer in a food processing plant, who experienced a
seizure causing loss of consciousness approximately once a month: The
court held that the employee did not have a disability, even though it
recognized that his epilepsy is debilitating at times.
A registered nurse, who worked as a claims adjuster for
the county health department: Her seizures were uncontrolled despite
her medication regimen and, as a result, she was unable to drive and
had to rely on friends and family for transportation. Again, no
coverage was available for this worker.
This is not what Congress intended when it passed the ADA in 1990.
Most employers and businesses try to do the right thing with regard to
people with disabilities. But for those who discriminate against people
with disabilities, the courts must be available to ensure that people
with disabilities have a fair opportunity to work and be a part of
everyday society.
The ADA Restoration Act of 2007 (H.R. 3195) is based upon the model
legislation proposed by the National Council on Disability in 2004, and
is designed to give people with all kinds of conditions protection from
adverse treatment on the basis of their condition, as Congress had
originally intended when the law was passed in 1990. Unlike the NCD's
broad proposed legislation which addressed a host of problems court
interpretations have created, problems that must eventually be solved,
in this legislation, H.R. 3195, Congress focuses only on fixing the
definition of disability, that is, ensuring that the ADA has the broad
scope and covers people as the law originally intended. We believe that
this problem must be solved immediately, or the rest of the law has
limited usefulness as a tool to redress employment discrimination
against people with epilepsy and similar disabilities.
The Epilepsy Foundation applauds the Congressional leaders who have
introduced and co-sponsored H.R. 3195 for recognizing and addressing
the fundamental problem of coverage under the current definition of
disability in the ADA as now implemented by the courts. We appreciate
the hearing being held in the Education and Labor Committee and look
forward to speedy passage of this legislation.
______
[The statement of the National Council on Disability
follows:]
------
[The statement of the National Council on Independent
Living follows:]
Prepared Statement of the National Council on Independent Living (NCIL)
Background: Passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 was designed as a ``clear and
comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination
against individuals with disabilities.'' Without doubt, the ADA has
transformed America's communities, removing barriers to persons with
disabilities in the built environment and infrastructure, and has
substantively advanced the cause of community integration for people
with disabilities.
Issues: Yet, as documented in the National Council on Disability's
report ``Righting the ADA,'' a series of flawed Supreme Court decisions
have seriously undermined our ability to realize the full promise of
the ADA. In Sutton v. United Airlines, and Toyota v. Williams, the
Supreme Court has taken to interpreting the definition of disability in
a restrictive manner that Congress never envisioned, placing the burden
on persons with disabilities to prove that they are entitled to the
ADA's protections--particularly in the employment sphere. This creates
a Catch-22 in which employees can be discriminated against on the basis
of their disability but unable to enforce their rights because they
cannot meet the high threshold the courts have set to prove they are
disabled. Furthermore, in University of Alabama v. Garrett, the Supreme
Court ruled 5-4 that the 11th Amendment prohibits suits in federal
court by state employees to recover monetary damages under Title I of
the ADA. The Supreme Court's restrictive approach to the ADA in
employment cases is especially disconcerting since the unemployment of
persons with disabilities wishing to work remains widespread.
Proper implementation of the original intent of the ADA in the
employment sphere is critical to the economic self-sufficiency and full
societal participation of people with disabilities that is at the core
of the Independent Living (IL) movement. The fact that only 7% of
persons with disabilities own their own homes and roughly 30% of
Americans with disabilities are employed is a reflection of the
continued inability of persons with disabilities to enforce their right
to non-discrimination in the workplace under the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Issues Raised by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce: The U.S. Chamber of
Commerce claims that H.R. 3195 ensures that protections on the basis of
disability apply broadly. This is correct. The Supreme Court did not
understand that significant disability as defined by the Americans with
Disabilities Act includes people with intellectual disabilities
(formerly known as Mental Retardation), epilepsy, diabetes, cancer, and
mental illnesses, among others. For a person who merely has poor vision
that is correctible, he or she may indeed be considered disabled by a
court. The question is not whether a person with a disability has a
disability or is regarded as a person with a disability. The question
is whether or not the person has been discriminated against on the
basis of disability. The intent of H.R. 3195 is to prevent
discrimination on the basis of disability, not to create a protected
class.
The Chamber of Commerce also alleges that ``H.R. 3195 would reverse
the long-standing rule that allows employers to determine what the
essential functions of a job are, allowing plaintiffs to second-guess
routine job decisions that employers must make every day.'' There is no
such language in H.R. 3195 to this effect.
The problem with the Supreme Court's and lower courts' decisions,
referenced in HR 3195's ``Findings and Purposes,'' is that they refuse
to even consider whether discrimination based on disability has
occurred. Therefore, the courts ruled that the plaintiff was either not
disabled or not disabled enough to be protected by the ADA. Had the
courts properly reviewed these cases, they would have decided them on
the basis of whether the plaintiff was qualified to perform the
essential functions of the job with or without reasonable
accommodation.
The real problem in the Chamber of Commerce's August 22 letter to
the U.S. House of Representatives is not their fallacious reasoning,
but the blatant prejudice it exhibits against Americans with
disabilities. NCIL has members in all but five Congressional Districts.
Our experience working with businesses in communities across the
country over three decades shows that the majority of businesses are
more open minded than the board and staff of the Chamber of Commerce.
NCIL supports:
Enactment of the ADA Restoration Act as introduced by House
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, Rep. James Sensenbrenner, and cosponsored
by more than 200 of their colleagues to remedy decades of purposeful,
unconstitutional discrimination;
Funding for ongoing public education on the requirements of the
ADA, and adequate funding for strong enforcement by the US Department
of Justice, US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Federal
Communications Commission, and other agencies with enforcement
responsibilities;
Creative efforts by federally-funded enforcement, technical
assistance, and advocacy organizations to promote the positive aspects
of the ADA's accessibility and equal opportunity requirements;
Efforts by States to voluntarily waive their immunity from damage
suits brought by people with disabilities under Titles I and II of the
ADA, and;
Bipartisan Congressional efforts to overturn Supreme Court
decisions narrowing the scope of the ADA, by enacting the ADA
Restoration Act, H.R. 3195.
Thank you for your consideration. Please do not hesitate to contact
Deb Cotter of our policy staff if you have additional questions or
concerns, please contact us.
Sincerely,
John A. Lancaster, Executive Director,
Kelly Buckland, President,
National Council on Independent Living.
______
[Additional statements submitted by Mr. McKeon follow:]
[A statement of organizations in opposition to the bill
follows:]
January 28, 2008.
Hon. George Miller, Chairman,
Hon. Howard ``Buck'' McKeon, Ranking Member,
Committee on Education & Labor, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon: We write today to
share our concerns regarding H.R. 3195, the ``ADA Restoration Act''
that your committee will discuss in a legislative hearing on January
29. As a group, we strongly believe that the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) provides important and necessary protections for
employees and applicants. However, this legislation as currently
drafted would not ``restore'' the ADA, but would dramatically expand it
to cover even the most minor impairments, such as bad eyesight, the flu
or a small scar. In short, the bill is inconsistent with Congressional
intent expressed when the law was passed in 1990, would trivialize the
concept of disability and inappropriately divert employer resources
from those who need them most.
As you examine H.R. 3195, it is critical to note the key
distinction between ``disability'' and ``impairment'' under the law.
Under the ADA, an individual is ``disabled'' if he or she has a
physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life
activity. The law defines ``impairment'' broadly to cover virtually any
physical or mental condition. An impairment is considered a covered
disability only if it substantially limits activities that are central
to daily life, such as seeing, reading or breathing. If an individual
is found to be disabled and qualified to perform the essential
functions of the job, he or she may request an accommodation from the
employer. The individual and employer then engage in an interactive
process to reach a reasonable accommodation so the employee can perform
his or her job. This process has worked well under the law and is
structured to respond to the individual needs of employees.
H.R. 3195 drastically expands the definition of ``disability,'' by
eliminating the requirements that an individual's impairment
substantially limit a major life activity. Thus, the bill's concept of
``disabled'' would be expanded to cover any impairment, regardless of
how temporary, intermittent, occasional, mild or minor it is, including
health conditions such as the flu. The change would result in the law
covering conditions that Congress never intended to be covered by the
ADA, exponentially increasing the number of persons who can bring a
disability discrimination claim. For example, a person with a minor
finger cut requiring stitches would be considered just as disabled as a
veteran returning home having lost his or her arm in combat, and an
individual with occasional headaches would receive the same protection
as an individual with a serious brain damage. In essence, H.R. 3195
would create an environment where anything less than perfect health
would cause an individual to be covered under the ADA. The resulting
increase in requests for accommodation would overwhelm employers and
make it more difficult for them to assist the severely disabled.
These bills make many other unworkable changes to the ADA including
a dramatic expansion of employers' reasonable accommodation obligations
and a reversal of a long-established rule found in all federal
antidiscrimination laws that a person must show that he or she is
qualified to perform the job. Instead, the bills would shift this
responsibility to employers.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
American Architectural Manufacturers Association,
American Composites Manufacturers Association,
American Hotel & Lodging Association,
American Iron and Steel Institute,
American Sportfishing Association,
American Supply Association,
Associated Builders & Contractors,
Associated General Contractors,
College and University Professional Association for Human
Resources,
Environmental Industry Associations,
Food Marketing Institute,
HR Policy Association,
Independent Electrical Contractors,
International Foodservice Distributors Association,
International Franchise Association,
International Public Management Association for Human
Resources,
International Warehouse Logistics Association,
National Association of Convenience Stores,
National Association of Manufacturers,
National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors,
National Council of Chain Restaurants,
National Federation of Independent Business,
National Public Employer Labor Relations Association,
National Restaurant Association,
National Retail Federation,
National Roofing Contractors Association,
National Shooting Sports Foundation,
National Solid Wastes Management Associations,
Non-Ferrous Founders' Society,
North American Die Casting Association,
Printing Industries of America,
Retail Industry Leaders Association,
Society for Human Resource Management,
Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute,
Steel Manufacturers Association,
Textile Care Allied Trades Association,
Textile Rental Services Association of America,
U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
Waste Equipment and Technology Association,
Wood Moulding & Millwork Producers Association.
______
[The statement of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce follows:]
------
[The statement of the U.S. Department of Justice follows:]
------
[The statement of the HR Policy Association follows:]
------
[The statement of the National Federation of Independent
Business follows:]
January 29, 2008.
Hon. George Miller, Chairman,
Hon. Howard ``Buck'' McKeon, Ranking Member,
Committee on Education & Labor, U.S. House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Miller and Ranking Member McKeon: On behalf of the
National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), the nation's
leading small-business advocacy group, I am writing to express
opposition to H.R. 3195, the ``ADA Restoration Act.''
The 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) provides important
and necessary protections against disability discrimination in the
workplace. H.R. 3195 would dramatically expand the original ADA by
changing the definition of disability, expanding coverage to less
severe impairments. H.R. 3195 is inconsistent with the original intent
expressed by Congress to protect individuals who are substantially
limited by severe disabilities. Trivializing the concept of
``disability'' will inappropriately divert employer resources from
those who need them most.
NFIB opposes H.R. 3195 because it does not aim to make any positive
policy changes to an already complex ADA law. NFIB approves of
Congressional considerations to improve small employers' ability to
comply with the law, such as a grace period for accommodating disabled
employees. In an 2000 member ballot survey, 97 percent of NFIB members
agreed that small businesses should be given time to correct ADA
violations before a lawsuit can be filed against them.
Small-business resources are limited, yet small businesses actively
seek counsel and already contribute a great deal of resources to comply
with a myriad of confusing employment policy regulations like ADA. More
challenging, H.R. 3195 does not provide any clear legislative guidance
or intent on what constitutes a disability. Due to this lack of
clarity, NFIB is concerned that an individual with occasional headaches
could file a lawsuit demanding the same protection as an individual
with serious brain damage. The resulting increase in questionable
requests for accommodation will only make it more difficult for them to
assist the severely disabled. It will also certainly increase the
number of persons that will bring unreasonable disability
discrimination claims.
With this, H.R. 3195 would prohibit employers from considering the
effects of any mitigating measures an individual uses to manage his or
her impairment. For instance, a small employer would not be able to
consider the very significant negative effects of medication that may
be used by employees--such as those which come with warnings with
respect to operating heavy machinery.
Finally, H.R. 3195 also includes an unworkable and dramatic
expansion of employer obligations and reverses a long-established rule
found in all federal antidiscrimination laws that a person must show
that she or he is qualified to perform the job. Instead, this
legislation would shift the responsibility to employers. Under current
law, if an individual is found to be disabled and qualified to perform
the essential functions of the job, he or she may request an
accommodation from the employer. The individual and employer then
engage in an interactive process to reach a reasonable accommodation so
the employee can perform his or her job.
Last year, the EEOC received 15,575 charges of discrimination under
the ADA yet found reasonable cause for discrimination in only 5.6
percent of the time. NFIB is concerned that H.R. 3195 will only serve
as additional fodder for trial lawyers, diverting needed resources from
protecting the rights of the truly disabled. I urge your opposition to
H.R. 3195.
Sincerely,
Dan Danner, Executive Vice President,
Federal Public Policy and Political, National Federation of
Independent Business.
______
[Whereupon, at 11:53 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]