ADA Amendments - California Employers Need Not Worry

The federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was recently amended for the following reasons - these changes are effective January 1, 2009.

(1) to carry out the ADA’s objectives of providing ‘‘a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination’’ and ‘‘clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination’’ by reinstating a broad scope of protection to be available under the ADA;

(2) to reject the requirement enunciated by the Supreme Court in Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) and its companion cases that whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity is to be determined with reference to the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures;

(3) to reject the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) with regard to coverage under the third prong of the definition of disability and to reinstate the reasoning of the Supreme Court in School Board of Nassau County v. Arline, 480 U.S. 273 (1987) which set forth a broad view of the third prong of the definition of handicap under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973;

(4) to reject the standards enunciated by the Supreme Court in Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002), that the terms ‘‘substantially’’ and ‘‘major’’ in the definition of disability under the ADA ‘‘need to be interpreted strictly to create a demanding standard for qualifying as disabled,’’ and that to be substantially limited in performing a major life activity under the ADA ‘‘an individual must have an impairment that prevents or severely restricts the individual from doing activities that are of central importance to most people’s daily lives’’; and

(5) to provide a new definition of ‘‘substantially limits’’ to indicate that Congress intends to depart from the strict and demanding standard applied by the Supreme Court in Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams and by numerous lower courts.

However, California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) defines disability has something that limits (NOT substantially) employees' ability to perform the essential functions of their job without looking at the ameliorative effects of mitigating factors. So, these changes, while significant on a federal level, do not change compliance for California companies because FEHA's requirements are already and remain more stringent that those in the ADA, as amended. If you want detailed information on the differences between FEHA and the ADA, CalChamber members can access the FEHA- ADA comparison chart under "Forms and Checklists" on HRCalifornia.com.

Comments

[antonio]

Does the FEHA/Federal ADA comparison chart undser the "forms and Checlists" tab include the recent ADAAA amendments recently signed by the president??? Nice job on the chart.