30th Anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

Rebecca Bond, ChiefDisability Rights SectionU.S. Department of Justice

Jeanne Goldberg, Senior Attorney AdvisorOffice of Legal CounselU.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Four Goals of the ADATo assure for individuals with disabilities:

1. equality of opportunity,

2. full participation,

3. independent living, and

4. economic self‐sufficiency

Faces of the ADAhttps://www.ada.gov/30th_anniversary/30th_faces.html

Tools Available• Regulation

• Enforcement

• Technical Assistance

• Mediation

•Outreach

1999 and 2002 Supreme Court Decisions Interpreting Disability Under the ADA

Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc.(1999) and Murphy v. United Parcel Service (1999)

•ADA coverage requires medical condition must substantially limit major life activity even after considering the benefit of medications or assistive devices Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc.(1999) and Murphy v. United Parcel Service (1999)

•ADA coverage requires medical condition must substantially limit major life activity even after considering the benefit of medications or assistive devices

Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v.Williams (2002)

•Adopted “demanding standard” that ADA only covers “severe” conditions

Congressional Overrule:

2008: Congress overruled Sutton, Murphy, andToyota by passing the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA)

Jan. 1, 2009: ADAAA becomes effective; definition of “disability” is now “construed broadly”

2011: EEOC issues its final implementing regulations, including rules of construction for applying the amended definition of disability

ADAAA CLARIFIES Definition of “Disability”

“Substantially limit” does not require severe, significant, or long‐term restriction

Major life activities include major bodily functions 

Evaluated without benefits of mitigating measures

Chronic/episodic conditions are substantially limiting if would be when active

Many conditions often not covered under old definition now virtually always will be, e.g., epilepsy, diabetes, cancer, HIV; many less limiting conditions will also meet definition

“Regarded as” if adverse action based on impairment (unless both transitory and minor)

Applying the ADA Amendments Act

Harrison v. Soave Enterprises, 826 F. App’x 517 (6th Cir. 2020).  EEOC amicus brief: https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/litigation/briefs/harrison.html. 

Appellate court agreed with EEOC that lower court failed to apply ADAAA standards for “substantially limits” a major life activity:  major life activities include major bodily functions; benefits of mitigating measures are not to be considered; limitations need not be permanent, long‐term, severe, or significantly restricting; episodic or in remission conditions are substantially limiting if would be when active. Using older standards superseded by ADAAA, lower court incorrectly concluded employee’s knee injury did not meet ADA definition of disability. 

Applying the ADA Amendments Act 

EEOC v. Optimal Sols. & Techs., Inc., 422 F. Supp. 3d 1037 (D. Md. 2019). EEOC argued that database administrator with benign brain tumor who was terminated met definition of “individual with a disability.” Quoting Norton v. Assisted Living Concepts, Inc., 786 F. Supp. 2d 1173 (E.D. Tex. 2011), court stated: ADA as amended “now clarifies that as long as an impairment substantially limits one major life activity, such as normal cell growth, it need not limit other major life activities, … to be considered a disability.” In this case, “[b]ecause [the administrator’s] meningioma arose from cell division so abnormal and unregulated that it impacted surrounding cells and nerves, and led to obvious physical symptoms, it constitute[d] a substantial limitation of the major life activity of normal cell growth.”Additional selected recent ADAAA case summaries in paper:  pages 1‐7.

Update: Recent DOJ Cases

Title I of the ADA

Prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in employment.

Caroline County

• Nov. 16, 2020 settlement• Alleged failure to provide reasonable accommodations to employee with respiratory impairment• Will pay $75,000 in back pay and compensatory damages

Title II of the ADA

Prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in all services, programs, and activities of state and local governments (e.g., public education, employment, transportation, recreation, health care, social services, courts, law enforcement, corrections, and voting).

Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (DCF)

• Nov. 19, 2020 settlement• First DOJ settlement to address disability discrimination by state child welfare agency• Ensure equal treatment of parents with disabilities

Amtrak

• Dec. 2, 2020 settlement• Alleged failure to fix inaccessible passenger rail stations• Amtrak will fix inaccessible stations, build new accessible stations, and pay $2.25 million to passengers with disabilities

Title III of the ADA

Prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities by places of public accommodation (e.g., restaurants, retail stores, hotels, movie theaters, recreational facilities, doctors’ offices, hospitals).

Tufts Medical Center

• Feb. 28, 2020 settlement• Ensure physical accessibility of medical center• Ensure effective communication with individuals with disabilities

ADA Resources

Call the ADA Information Line: 

800‐514‐0301 (voice) or 800‐514‐0383 (TTY)

EEO Update

EEOC “ADA @ 30” anniversary web page: https://www.eeoc.gov/ada30-americans-disabilities-act-1990-2020

ADA Mediation Resolutions:https://www.eeoc.gov/ada30-ada-mediated-resolutions-narratives

Selected Recent Case Summaries in Paper

ADAAA as applied – pp. 1‐7

Qualified – pp. 7‐9

Reasonable Accommodation – pp. 9‐11

Direct Threat, Harassment, Association and Other Issues ‐ pp.  11‐13

Qualified?

EEOC v. McLeod Health, Inc., 914 F.3d 876 (4th Cir. 2019).

Due to a disability, employee had difficulty walking, and fell frequently.

Held: Disputed material fact whether it was essential function for employee newsletter editor to travel to the employer’s different campuses to conduct interviews. Job description did not mention need to go to the campuses to attend events or conduct interviews, and EEOC produced evidence that the employee could perform job task in a different way by collecting the information over the phone.

Reasonable Accommodation: Interactive Process

MLSNA v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 975 F.3d 629 (2020). Train conductor with hearing impairment was required under new company policy to wear a hearing protection device that did not fit over his hearing aids.

He proposed to use an alternative device compatible with hearing aids, but railroad rejected it because it did not have features it thought were required by federal regulation.

Summary judgment for employer reversed; fact questions for jury to resolve regarding whether employer satisfied its interactive process obligation to search for accommodations that met the regulatory standard, if it applied. Plaintiff presented evidence of numerous accommodations employer could have offered but did not. Employer had no evidence to support its contention that it had searched for an alternative after rejecting the employee’s proposed device.

EEOC amicus brief: https://www.eeoc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-06/mlnsa.html.

Accessibility of Online Job Applications

EEOC reached agreement on Oct. 9, 2019, with the Dish Network to conciliate disability discrimination charge regarding online application system, https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/10-9-19.cfm. System automatically disqualified applicants who did not answer yes to question about availability to work around-the-clock.Individual with epilepsy could not work nights, so was screened out based on qualification standard that EEOC alleged was not job related and consistent with business necessity. Settlement included nationwide modifications to system and RA process + $125 million settlement for aggrieved applicants; display of prominent statement describing willingness to provide accommodation & instructions for requests during application process; consultant to evaluate online assessment questions.

2020: Opioid Use

Use of Codeine, Oxycodone, and Other Opioids: Information for Employees

https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/use‐codeine‐oxycodone‐and‐other‐opioids‐information‐employees

2020: COVID-19

What You Should Know About COVID‐19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and the EEO Laws

www.eeoc.gov/coronavirus   

EEOC Efforts for Veterans with Disabilities

Understanding Your Employment Rights Under the Americans with Disabilities Act: A Guide for Veterans

Veterans and the Americans with Disabilities Act: A Guide for Employers

https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/eeoc-efforts-veterans-disabilities

2020: Veterans

COMPLIANCE ASSISTANCE 

EEOC Office of Legal Counsel “Attorney of the Day” line for questions: 202‐663‐46911‐800‐669‐6820 (TTY)1‐844‐234‐5122 (ASL Video Phone)More information and links to EEOC ADA guidance and technical assistance publications:www.eeoc.gov/disability‐discrimination

Job Accommodation Network (sponsored by the U.S. Department of Labor):www.askjan.org

If You Think You May Be a Victim of Discrimination

For questions about ADA and other statutes enforced by the EEOC:

202‐663‐4691

1‐800‐669‐6820 (TTY)

1‐844‐234‐5122 (ASL Video Phone)

To file charge of discrimination, first submit inquiry: https://publicportal.eeoc.gov/Portal/Login.aspx

There is no cost to be interviewed, to file a charge, or to have it investigated.

Questions?