June 24, 2008

Dear Representative:

On behalf of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR), the nation’s oldest, largest, and most diverse civil and human rights coalition, we write to urge you to support the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA), which will secure the promise of the original Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). The bill, which has bipartisan support, is a joint effort of the business and disability communities who have come together to forge a compromise to restore the ADA by ensuring coverage for those individuals intended by Congress to be covered by the ADA.

The fundamental goal of the ADA is the inclusion of people with disabilities in all aspects of society, including employment for people who are willing and able to work despite their disabilities. Unfortunately, court decisions over the last decade have resulted in the exclusion from coverage of individuals who should have been protected by the ADA. These narrow court interpretations have restricted ADA coverage for people with diabetes, epilepsy, serious heart conditions, mental disabilities, and even cancer.

LCCR believes that employment discrimination must be eradicated for all Americans. Therefore, the civil rights community stands fully and strongly with the disability community in their effort to combat employment discrimination and to support people with disabilities who can and want to work. The right to be treated fairly, equally, and safely in the workplace is a central tenet of the fight for civil rights. And this bill will restore employment protections provided by the ADA which have been chipped away by recent Supreme Court rulings, narrowing the interpretation of the ADA far beyond Congressional intent.

Specifically, in Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) and its companion cases, Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 527 U.S. 516 (1999) and Albertson’s, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. 555 (1999), the Court ruled that courts must consider the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures in determining whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity. Additionally, under the third or “regarded as” prong, the Court required people to show that their employer believed them incapable of performing a broad range of jobs, not just the job they were denied. This interpretation contradicts the broad interpretation of the “regarded as” prong articulated by the Supreme Court in School Board of Nassau County v. Arline, 480 U.S. 273 (1987), on which the ADA’s legislative history relied.

In Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002), the Court ruled that the terms “substantially limits” and “major life activities” in the ADA must be “interpreted strictly to create a demanding standard for qualifying as disabled.” Id. at 197. Specifically, the Court determined that the term “substantially limits” required that the impairment “prevent or severely restrict” a person from performing the activity, and ruled that the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights term “major life activity” covered only activities “of central importance to people’s daily lives.” Id. at 198.

Lower courts, following the Supreme Court’s trend of restricting the application of the ADA, have focused on the severity of the individual’s disability (i.e. whether the person is “disabled enough” to qualify for coverage), rather than on the discrimination experienced as a result of the disability. In one case, a court required a person to be limited in more than one major life activity in order to qualify for coverage.

In an effort to reverse the Supreme Court’s narrow interpretation of the ADA, the ADAAA includes the following key provisions:

• Coverage under the ADA - The proposal clarifies that Congress intended the ADA’s coverage to be broad, to cover anyone who faces unfair discrimination because of a disability.
• Definition of Disability - The proposal retains the requirements that an individual’s impairment must substantially limit a major life activity in order to be considered a disability, and that an individual must demonstrate he or she is qualified for the job.
• Protection for Mitigating Measures - The proposal would overturn several court decisions to provide that people with disabilities not lose their coverage under the ADA simply because their condition is treatable with medication or can be addressed with the help of assistive technology.
• Regarded As - The proposal includes a “regarded as” prong as part of the definition of disability which covers situations where an employee is discriminated against because of his or her actual or perceived impairment. Moreover, the proposal makes it clear that accommodations do not need to be made to someone who is disabled solely because he or she is “regarded as” disabled.

The compromise worked out between the employer and disability communities is an effort to restore the ADA to its original intent, in order to cover the thousands of individuals being unfairly refused coverage because of the Court’s narrow interpretation. This bill is not an attempt to change the ADA’s original provisions or coverage. Amendments to this effort are inappropriate and ill-timed. We thus urge you to support this bill without amendment.

The undersigned organizations and members of LCCR urge you to vote in favor of final passage of H.R. 3195 and against all amendments, including the motion to recommit.

If you have any questions about the bill, please contact Lisa Bornstein, LCCR Senior Counsel and Senior Policy Analyst, at (202) 263-2856, or Nancy Zirkin at (202) 263-2880.

Sincerely,

Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
ADA Watch/National Coalition for Disability Rights
AFL-CIO
American Association of People with Disabilities
American Association of University Women
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
American Federation of Teachers (AFT)
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
American Foundation for the Blind
American Jewish Committee
Americans for Democratic Action
Anti-Defamation League
Asian American Justice Center
Association of University Centers on Disabilities (AUCD)
Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America
Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law
Common Cause
Community Action Partnership
Epilepsy Foundation
Federally Employed Women (FEW)
Friends Committee on National Legislation
Human Rights Campaign
International Union, United Auto Workers
Jewish Council for Public Affairs
Jewish Labor Committee
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
League of Women Voters
Legal Momentum
NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc.
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)
National Congress of Black Women, Inc.
National Council of Churches USA
National Council of Jewish Women
National Council of La Raza (NCLR)
National Council on Independent Living (NCIL)
National Education Association (NEA)
National Employment Lawyers Association
National Fair Housing Alliance
National Federation of Filipino American Associations (NaFFAA)
National Legal Aid and Defender Association
National Organization for Women
National Partnership for Women & Families
National Women’s Law Center
Paralyzed Veterans of America
People For the American Way
Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF)
The Workmen’s Circle/Arbeter Ring
Union for Reform Judaism
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations