Employers Beware: ADA Claims On The Rise Now And Into The Foreseeable Future
Time 3 Minute Read

As was predicted following the passage of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA), which went into effect in January 2009, there has been a subsequent surge in the filing of lawsuits under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).  Lawsuits brought under the ADA now comprise the highest percentage of claims filed by former employees.  When compared with the number of ADA-related lawsuits filed in the first three months of 2009, there has been a nearly 40% percent increase in the number of ADA-related suits filed in 2010  during the same period.  Moreover, the second quarter of 2010 saw the number of ADA-related lawsuits increase by 15% over those filed in the first quarter.

The significant increase in the number of ADA-related lawsuits is the result of the ADAAA’s express directive that the definition of “disability” is to be construed in favor of “broad coverage.”  Not surprisingly, this change has encouraged Plaintiff’s attorneys regarding the prospects of successfully advancing a client’s ADA claim.  More specifically, the ADAAA (i) expands the definition of “disability”-- which, necessarily increases the number of individuals covered under the ADA -- and (ii) shifted the focus from whether an individual is disabled to whether and how that individual should be accommodated.  The ADAAA’s proposed implementing regulations, which are expected to become final later this summer, leaves no doubt that the operative question is no longer: Is an employee disabled?  Instead, the key question is now: What should an employer do to accommodate the employee’s disability?  For example, the proposed regulations create a list of “per se” physical and mental impairments that will “consistently” qualify as disabilities, such as cancer, blindness, deafness, epilepsy, HIV/AIDS and cerebral palsy.  Additionally, the proposed regulations clarify what it means for an impairment to “substantially limit” a major life activity or major bodily function and explain how to evaluate impairments when mitigating measures are used.   

In light of the significant increase in the number of ADA-related claims filed this year, and the prospect that these claims will increase, employers should be proactive in order to minimize potential exposure.  First, employers should conduct a policy review to ensure that their policies and practices are up-to-date with the ADAAA and its proposed regulations.  Second, employers should provide training for their human resources personnel as well as their frontline managers and supervisors regarding the ADAAA, particularly with respect to accommodation issues.  Finally, employers should review and update (or prepare new) job descriptions to ensure that they include all of the essential functions of a particular position.

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 4 Minute Read

In the case of Tarquinio v. Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab (No. 24-1432), decided by the Fourth Circuit on June 25, 2025, the court addressed whether an employer had a duty under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to accommodate an employee who refused to provide medical documentation supporting her request for a COVID-19 vaccine exemption.

Time 4 Minute Read

In Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida, the U.S. Supreme Court held a disabled former employee who neither “holds” nor “desires” a job is not a “qualified individual” under the ADA and, thus, cannot sue for disability discrimination following her employer’s revocation of retiree health benefits. 

Time 3 Minute Read

The Supreme Court of the United States recently granted certiorari in Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida—a consequential case about whether the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) covers former employees.  The case has practical significance for employers. 

Time 3 Minute Read

While the intent of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act was to improve equality of access to goods and services offered by places of public accommodation, the Plaintiffs’ bar has seized on the law to recruit serial litigants—also known as “professional plaintiffs” or “paid testers”—to repeatedly sue businesses for minor, technical violations without actually seeking to purchase anything at all. 

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page