WPA in the News
ADA Amendments May Spark Increase in Employment Discrimination Lawsuits
January 5, 2009
eeoc.gov
Washington, DC -- From 1992 to 2007, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission received a total of 253,199 charges of discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act and recouped $677 million in monetary benefits.*
In fiscal 2007, which ended Sept. 30, 2007, the commission received 17,734 charges of disability discrimination and recouped $54.4 million in monetary benefits.*
For 2009, Amendments to the Americans With Disabilities Act are expected to bring more people within the umbrella of the law’s protection against employment discrimination on the basis of disabilities.
Federal legislation that took effect New Year’s Day expanded the scope of disability employment law and reversed a U.S. Supreme Court decision that evolved from a Kansas City discrimination case 10 years ago. The new version of the ADA alters the legal precedent set a decade ago that restricted discrimination protection to exclude people with disabilities that could be reasonably corrected.
Employers now must evaluate a worker’s disability in its uncorrected state and make a reasonable accommodation. Some experts assert that the amendments will give rise to more employment discrimination lawsuits this year.
More Conditions Covered Under Legislation
The amendments create a much different scenario because they alter how the ADA’s definition of a disability is interpreted.
The basic definition remains the same, according to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which defines a disability as “an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a record of such an impairment, or being regarded as having an impairment.”
The Amendments Act expanded the list of major life activities to include bending, reading and communicating as well as major bodily functions, such as functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, respiratory and more.
Cynthia Doll, an employment law attorney with Wyatt Tarrant & Combs LLP, said the additional major life activities likely will result in more accommodations being made for mental and emotional conditions and learning disabilities.
Another primary change, Doll said, is that employers cannot determine ADA eligibility based on an employee’s corrected state. An employee still can claim a disability even if he or she is in remission or has medication or a device that controls his or her symptoms.
Such a broad “employee friendly” interpretation of whom the ADA covers practically eliminates the question of whether an employee is eligible for accommodations.
Because of the changes, Doll said, Wyatt attorneys now are advising clients to try to accommodate an employee’s request without too much analysis of whether the person is eligible for disability.
Doll, who has seen the number of disability lawsuits rise during the past few years, said she believes that the new act will spark even more litigation and make it more difficult to get a case dismissed in the beginning stages of litigation. Before, a case could be dropped if there was no clear evidence of a disability.
But an employer will not have that argument now.
Experts recommend that employers review policies outlined in their employment handbooks and train human resource professionals and key managers on the changes so they can field ADA requests appropriately and remain in compliance.
* Source | www.eeoc.gov
Back