Recent Trends: Increase In ADA Lawsuits Expected With New ADA Regulations
Time 3 Minute Read

Disability discrimination claims have long been difficult for employees to pursue in court. Although employers are often grappling with reasonable accommodation and leave issues in the workplace, such issues have typically not spilled into the courtroom. One reason for that has been the difficulty in proving an employee has a “disability.” The final regulations issued by the EEOC in March 2011 could change all of that. The new regulations, interpreting the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) expand the definition of “disability” and otherwise remove several impediments to pursuing lawsuits under the ADA. This should lead to an increase in ADA litigation.

Generally speaking, the ADAAA will make it easier for individuals to establish ADA protection. The ADA’s three-pronged definition of “disability” remains the same:

  • a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities;
  • a record (or past history) of such an impairment; or
  • being regarded as having a disability.

However, the new law makes it clear that the definition must be interpreted in favor of broad coverage, extending protection to many individuals who might have been previously denied coverage. 

Some specific highlights include:

  • Relaxing the definition of “substantial limitation.” Now, the impairment need not prevent or significantly restrict a major life activity to be considered substantially limiting.
  • Expanding the scope of “major life activities” to include the operation of major bodily functions, including functions of the immune system, special sense organs and skin, normal cell growth, digestive, genitourinary, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, cardiovascular, endocrine, hemic, lymphatic, musculoskeletal, and reproductive functions. The regulations also state that major bodily functions include the operation of an individual organ within a body system (e.g., the operation of the kidney, liver, or pancreas).
  • Specific examples of impairments are listed in the regulations and include deafness, blindness, intellectual disability (formerly termed “mental retardation”), partially or completely missing limbs, mobility impairments requiring use of a wheelchair, autism, cancer, cerebral palsy, diabetes, epilepsy, HIV infection, multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and schizophrenia.
  • Positive effects from an individual’s use of one or more “mitigating measures” (other than ordinary eyeglasses and contact lenses) must be ignored in determining if an impairment substantially limits a major life activity. However, mitigating affects may still be considered for purposes other than determining whether the impairment is substantially limiting.
  • Coverage is extended to impairments that are episodic or in remission (such as cancer and epilepsy), so long as the impairment is substantially limiting when active.

The regulations also make it easier for individuals to establish coverage under the “regarded as” prong of the definition of disability. The focus is on how a person has been treated because of a physical or mental impairment, rather than on what an employer may have believed about the nature of the person’s impairment. The regulations clarify, however, that an individual must be covered under the first or second prongs (actual or record of disability) in order to qualify for a reasonable accommodation.

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 2 Minute Read

The 2024 EEO-1 Component 1 data collection process is expected to move forward, based on documentation submitted to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval.

Time 4 Minute Read

On February 19, 2025, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) Acting Chair Andrea Lucas vowed to prioritize anti-American national origin discrimination in compliance efforts, investigations, and litigation.

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page