Client Alerts & Insights
President Signs ADA Amendments Act
October 15, 2008
Authored By:
On Thursday, September 25, President Bush signed into law several amendments to the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”) that will go into effect on January 1, 2009. Currently, a qualifying disability under the ADA includes only those “physical or mental impairments that substantially limit one or more major life activity,” such as performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, walking, standing, and thinking. With these new amendments, however, the scope of what is considered a qualifying disability will be greatly expanded, as the amendments redefine what is a “disability” and “impairment” under the law, as well as the standard by which a qualifying disability affects an individual’s major life activity.
The amendments overrule Supreme Court precedent and prohibit employers from considering mitigating measures, such as medication, prosthetics, or hearing aids, when determining whether an employee has a qualifying disability. An exception exists only for eye glasses and contact lenses. In addition, the amendments operate to include episodic disabilities or disabilities that are in remission as qualifying disabilities. The amendments further alter the interpretation of whether a particular disability satisfies the ADA definition by expanding on whether it “substantially limits” a major life activity, revising the standard to whether the disability “materially restricts” a major life activity. In addition to expanding what is a qualifying disability under the ADA, the amendments also empower the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Attorney General, and the Department of Transportation with authority to issue regulations and guidance on how these revised definitions should be interpreted.
Finally, the amendments to the ADA clarify coverage under the statute for an individual who is “regarded as” being disabled under the law, excluding minor impairments of less than six months in duration and an employer’s requirement to provide a reasonable accommodation. The amendments clarify that the employee continues to bear the burden of proving that he or she is qualified with a disability, or discriminated against due to a perceived mental or physical impairment.
Revisions to the ADA will have a significant practical impact on employers as employees with conditions previously not recognized under the statute, such as epilepsy and cancer, will be covered under the revised law. With this increase in potential claimants, it is expected that a resulting increase in lawsuits and administrative charges will occur as well.
If you have additional questions or would like to discuss the impact of the revisions to the ADA on your specific operations and policies, please contact any of the following members of Benesch’s Labor & Employment Practice Group:
Maynard A. Buck – 216-363-4694
Joseph N. Gross – 216-363-4163
Peter N. Kirsanow – 216-363-4481
Latest News
Supreme Court Clarifies Judicial Estoppel Standard in Bankruptcy Nondisclosure Cases
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected a rigid rule that often blocked debtors from pursuing claims they failed to disclose in bankruptcy. Courts must now look at the full circumstances before deciding whether an omission was intentional or an honest mistake.
Federal Court Hands Major Win to Tissue Product Manufacturers – FDA’s HCT/P Classification Decision for Umbilical Cord–Derived Product CORDGRAFT Rejected
On March 18, 2026, Chief Judge Brian C. Wimes of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri issued a significant decision overturning the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (“FDA”) classification of Vitti Labs’ umbilical cord–derived product, CORDGRAFT.
Science-Backed But Not FDA-Approved: New Lawsuit Challenges FDA’s Rejection of 114 Health-Related Advertising Claims
A new lawsuit challenges the FDA’s rejection of 114 health-related advertising claims for supplements, arguing that the agency’s narrow interpretation of what counts as an “authoritative statement” unfairly blocks science-backed—but not FDA-approved—claims from appearing on product labels.
When ChatGPT Lies: What the First Wave of AI Defamation Cases Means for Plaintiffs
The common argument made by plaintiffs that differences in alleged misrepresentations are transcended by the center of the gravity of the alleged fraud should not be addressed through the typical approach of just comparing the level of variance of the representations in the case at issue with that in the relevant precedent.