Americans With Disabilities Act Amendments Research Articles

Have Almost Fifty Years Of Disability Civil Rights Laws Achieved Equitable Care?

For almost fifty years, federal civil rights laws such as Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 and the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, and Section 1557 and other provisions of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act have prohibited discrimination against Americans with disabilities, including in health care. Despite these laws, disabled Americans continue to experience disparities in health and health care, from preventive care to home and community-based services. In its 2022 Health Equity Framework for People with Disabilities, the National Council on Disability highlighted some of these disparities and recommended remedies. To explore these concerns, this article examines disability inequities and potential solutions within six areas. It concludes by recommending the ratification of the 2006 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to reinvigorate US efforts to maximize the health and dignity of disabled Americans and support their full participation in the community.

Requesting Workplace Accommodation among Individuals with Mobility Disabilities: A Qualitative Investigation on Barriers and Facilitators

Individuals with mobility disabilities still experience challenges in the workplace. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and ADA Amendments Act protect persons with disabilities by mandating that their employers provide reasonable accommodations. Generally, workplace accommodations are beneficial to the employees and the workplace and are cost-efficient. However, there remains a lack of access to accommodations among people with mobility disabilities. This study examined types of accommodations, and barriers and facilitators for requesting workplace accommodations among 144 employees with mobility disabilities through a content analysis approach. The frequently requested accommodations include flexible schedule, assistive technology, and physical alteration to office space. The reported facilitators in requesting accommodations entail employer/supervisor support and compliance of employers with accommodation provision, disability acceptance and supportive workplace environment, and employees being knowledgeable and proactive in requesting accommodations. The top three barriers in requesting accommodations include physical and systematic barriers in the workplace, employee fear of disclosing disability or requesting accommodations due to stigma, and employee fear of cost and financial resource to cover accommodations. Therefore, rehabilitation professionals should empower employees and promote education and awareness of the accommodation needs of people with mobility disabilities in the workplace.

Workplace discrimination allegations and outcomes involving Caucasian Americans, African Americans, and Hispanic/Latinx Americans with multiple sclerosis: A causal comparative analysis

BACKGROUND: Although African Americans and Hispanic/Latinx Americans with multiple sclerosis (MS) frequently cite workplace discrimination as a major concern, the specific nature of this discrimination is not yet well understood. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate racial/ethnic differences in allegations of workplace discrimination by Caucasian, African American, and Hispanic/Latinx American individuals with MS. METHODS: The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Integrated Mission System (IMS) database was used to describe and compare the frequency and characteristics of discrimination allegations filed by people with MS in the three race/ethnicity groups. Quantitative analyses, including a one-way analysis of variance and Chi-square tests, were used to examine 2009–2016 Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA) Title I complaints. These complaints were received by the EEOC from people with MS who identified themselves as Caucasian, African American, and Hispanic/Latinx American (N = 3,770). RESULTS: Both African Americans and Hispanic/Latinx Americans tended to encounter discrimination at a younger age than Caucasian Americans. African American and Hispanic/Latinx American charging parties were more likely to be women than were Caucasian charging parties. The size and location of employers against whom allegations were filed varied significantly among the three racial/ethnic groups. The EEOC was more likely to resolve allegations in the charging parties’ favor when the allegations were filed by Caucasians. CONCLUSION: The present study revealed modest but significant differences in the workplace discrimination experiences of the three groups under study. More research is needed to determine why racial/ethnic status bears on the discrimination experiences of Americans with MS.

The Spectrum of Disability Documentation Requirements at 12 Institutions A Thematic Analysis

The two laws primarily governing disability services in postsecondary education, the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, permit institutions of higher education to determine disability documentation requirements on an individual basis. Many institutions have utilized documentation guidelines delineating a range of domains to be addressed, and often, suggestions for specific tests to be included, as well as strict recency requirements. Following passage of the ADAAA in 2008, the Association on Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD) published documentation guidance practices that reflected the updated ADAAA. The current qualitative study examined the perspectives of 12 directors of disability services (DDS) at postsecondary institutions in the United States regarding the disability documentation requirements at their respective schools and their perspectives on why the standards were adopted. Findings revealed a wide spectrum from flexibility to rigidity in requirements from those who employ traditional guidelines to those who apply selective degrees of the AHEAD guidance. Benefits and drawbacks of documentation and the AHEAD guidance are discussed, as well as suggestions for practitioners and institutions seeking to implement the AHEAD guidance.

Non-Burdensome Process: An Argument in Support of Reframing What Constitutes Necessary Disability Documentation

Institutions of higher education and their respective disability offices have been challenged with determining how to apply the 2008 Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA) in our present-day work settings. Prior to the amendments, third-party documentation was considered essential almost to the point of being non-negotiable in need for most disability offices to facilitate accommodations for disabled students (The authors have made an intentional choice to utilize identity-first language to challenge negative connotations associated with the term disability and highlight the role that inaccessible systems and environments play in disabling people). The ADAAA questioned this mindset. Students with disabilities often found (and still find) themselves burdened financially and procedurally by disability offices requiring documentation to the point where students may not receive the access they truly need. Furthermore, college campuses are increasingly focusing on the limitations of the environment and not the person. As a result of this evolution, the Association on Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD) offered a new framework in 2012 describing how to define documentation. For professionals in the higher education disability field and for those invested in this work, it is critical to grasp the evolving understanding of what constitutes documentation and necessary information to make disability accommodation decisions. Otherwise, disabiled students may be further excluded from higher education access.

Workplace Discrimination Experiences of Americans With Alcohol Use Disorders and Americans With Drug Use Disorders: A Comparative Analysis

The purpose of this study was to investigate the patterns in allegations of workplace discrimination by individuals with alcohol use disorders (AUDs) relative to those with other drug use disorders (DUD). The goal of the research was to describe the uniqueness of workplace discrimination, both actual and perceived, that has occurred against individuals with AUD when compared to those with DUD through analysis of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Integrated Mission System (IMS) database. An ex post facto, causal comparative quantitative design was used to examine Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA) Title I complaints received by the EEOC from individuals with AUD ( n = 2,123) from 2009 through 2016 in comparison to ADAAA Title I complaints received from individuals with DUD ( n = 1,472) over the same time period. Results revealed statistically significant differences in the patterns of issues alleged by the two groups. The AUD charging parties (individuals who filed the complaints) were, on average, significantly older and involved fewer African Americans than did the DUD comparison group. Individuals with AUD were significantly less likely than the DUD group to achieve merit closures when investigations were completed. This means that the DUD group’s investigations were more often closed as favorable to the charging party. Implications for rehabilitation practice and further research are discussed.

The employment discrimination experiences of younger and older Americans with cancer under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The goal of the research was to describe discrimination, both actual and perceived, that has occurred against younger individuals with cancer (i.e., 35years of age and under) in comparison with older individuals with cancer (i.e., over age 35) through analysis of the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Integrated Mission System (IMS) database. An ex post facto, causal comparative quantitative design was used to examine Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA) Title I complaints received by the EEOC from younger people with cancer from 2009 through 2016 (n = 1001) in comparison with older people with cancer over the same time period (n = 8874). Results revealed statistically significant differences in the patterns of issues alleged by the two groups. When compared with older charging parties with cancer, the younger charging parties with cancer had proportionally more individuals who were male and who identified as African American and proportionally fewer individuals who identified as Caucasian. Younger people with cancer were more likely to allege discrimination in the areas of promotion, training, reinstatement, and referrals to other employers. They were less likely to allege discrimination in the area of benefits. The younger group was also significantly less likely than the older group to find that EEOC investigations of their allegations resulted in merit-based case resolutions, that is, discrimination had indeed occurred. Psychosocial programs and vocational programming assisting young adults with career development should focus on the types of discrimination that young adults experience, which is unique compared with older adult cancer survivors.

The Americans With Disabilities Act, Reasonable Accommodations, and Medical Education.

The number of students with a disability matriculating into institutions of medical education, including physician assistant programs, is increasing. Educational institutions must develop procedures with regard to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) including the provision of reasonable accommodations to provide equal opportunities for all. These procedures must be compliant with federal and state laws while protecting academic integrity, maintaining technical standards, and successfully navigating the institutional and individual faculty barriers. Knowledge of the ADA and the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 as well as some familiarity with the legal precedent regarding these laws will facilitate planning and decision-making for students with disabilities. This is imperative for educating not just those with specific disabilities but also the evolving learners of today. Such knowledge, coupled with the continued prioritization of technical standards and student outcomes, will assist in the curricular development of the future.

Personality testing and the Americans With Disabilities Act: Cause for concern as normal and abnormal personality models are integrated

AbstractApplied psychologists commonly use personality tests in employee selection systems because of their advantages regarding incremental criterion-related validity and less adverse impact relative to cognitive ability tests. Although personality tests have seen limited legal challenges in the past, we posit that the use of personality tests might see increased challenges under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) due to emerging evidence that normative personality and personality disorders belong to common continua. This article aims to begin a discussion and offer initial insight regarding the possible implications of this research for personality testing under the ADA. We review past case law, scholarship in employment law, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidance regarding “medical examinations,” and recent literature from various psychology disciplines—including clinical, neuropsychology, and applied personality psychology—regarding the relationship between normative personality and personality disorders. More importantly, we review suggestions proposing the five-factor model (FFM) be used to diagnose personality disorders (PDs) and recent changes in theDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders(DSM). Our review suggests that as scientific understanding of personality progresses, practitioners will need to exercise evermore caution when choosing personality measures for use in selection systems. We conclude with six recommendations for applied psychologists when developing or choosing personality measures.

An Americans with Disabilities Act for Everyone, and for the Ages As Well

A perennial problem in understanding and implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is whether it is aimed at protecting only people with disabilities. Interpreting the statute in this way focuses attention on the problem of determining who is disabled. It also invites thinking that the statute conveys special benefits for disabled people, thereby suggesting that its effect is to privilege them-even if the privilege might stem from their disadvantage or need. Thus, this familiar but mistaken understanding of the ADA as conferring a right on one type of person can only be cast in a way that incites resentment. In this Article, we take on this categorical view of the ADA. We argue that the statute from the beginning was meant to protect against an identified form of discrimination rather than to protect an identified group of people and, moreover, that in any case the concept of disability will not bear the weight the categorical view would ascribe to it. We contend as well that the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAA or Amendments Act) reaffirms this universal interpretation of the statute.

Amicus Brief of CancerLINC and National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship, et al., in Golden v. Indianapolis Housing Agency (U.S. Supreme Court, No. 17-1113)

In a series of cases, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has held that a person needing a multi-month leave from work to treat and to recover from an illness is categorically not disabled and thus not eligible for the employment protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). See, e.g., Severson v. Heartland Woodcraft, Inc., 872 F.3d 476, 479 (7th Cir. 2017). Specifically, the Seventh Circuit has erected a per se rule that anyone needing a temporary, multi-month leave of absence is never a qualified “individual with a disability” under the ADA, see 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8) — stopping the typical ADA analysis at its threshold and thus failing to account for the ADA’s flexible, case-by-case inquiry into whether a given workplace accommodation is “reasonable” and whether the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the employer. See, e.g., U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391, 405-06 (2002). A pending petition for a writ of certiorari in Golden v. Indianapolis Housing Agency, No. 17-1113 (U.S.), challenges the Seventh Circuit’s rule. Two national non-profit organizations — CancerLINC and the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship — and three individual cancer survivors and advocates have filed the attached amicus brief in support of the Golden petition. The amicus brief explains in detail, through use of medical and other literature, why the Seventh Circuit’s rule would eliminate coverage for large numbers of people in treatment for cancer. (For instance, data show that the average length of absence from work for cancer treatment is about five months.) The brief also explains that treatment for other serious medical problems — for instance, certain kinds of heart and kidney disease — have similar recovery times, and so many other patients also would lose ADA coverage under the Seventh Circuit’s rule. The brief shows that the Seventh Circuit’s rule runs headlong into the ADA’s text and history. When Congress first considered the ADA, it heard about employment discrimination from cancer survivors and then indicated that cancer survivors were covered by the Act. After the ADA’s passage, however, some courts excluded cancer survivors from ADA coverage. Congress responded in 2008 with the ADA Amendments Act to clarify that the ADA covers cancer survivors. Congress expressly include people with impairments to “normal cell growth,” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(B), and impairments “in remission,” id. § 12102(4)(D) — both references to cancer. As the amicus brief explains, if the Seventh Circuit’s rule remains in place, these important statutory changes would have little practical effect. Notably, the first-line drafters and researchers of this amicus brief are law students in Georgetown Law’s Appellate Courts Immersion Clinic, Cole Kroshus and Genevieve Mesch.

Attention Deficit Disorder and the Americans With Disabilities Act: Is Anyone Paying Attention?

As millions of individuals who have been given a diagnosis of attention deficit disorder and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder enter the workforce, more individuals with these mental impairments are filing claims with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as amended in 2008 by the ADA Amendments Act. The ADA forbids employment discrimination based on an individual's disability and also requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities. Health care managers must be well prepared with knowledge of the employers' rights and responsibilities under the law. By exploring the legal challenges being made to employers' policies and practices and examining how the courts are resolving those disputes, managers can reduce the risk of expensive, time-consuming litigation caused by employment discrimination claims based on disability.

Navigating the Rolling Hills of Justice: Mental Disabilities, Employment and the Evolving Jurisprudence of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Mental illness and disability affect millions of individuals yearly in the U.S. The most important legislation protecting the mentally disabled in the workplace in the U.S. over the last half century has been the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and its associated legislation and guidance. Although the employee should first request reasonable accommodation with the employer, evaluation by a mental health professional is one of the initial steps for individuals who report significant psychiatric symptoms that are impairing their functioning at work in the U.S.. Important regulations and laws in the United States that are essential knowledge to performing thorough mental disability evaluations include the ADA and Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA), Social Security Disability, Workers' Compensation, and private disability insurance. These laws differ in applicability and in their definitions of disability. Social Security Disability is applicable to workers who have long-term impairments regardless of whether the disability arose on or off the job, while Worker's Compensation is specific to persons with work-related illness and injuries that occur on the job (Reno, Williams, & Sengupta, ). The Social Security definition of a disabled person is a person who is not "able to engage in any substantial gainful activity because of a medically-determinable physical or mental impairment(s): that is expected to result in death, or that has lasted or is expected to last for a continuous period of at least 12 months" (Social Security Red Book, ). However, the Workers' Compensation definition of what illnesses/injuries are compensated, the level of benefits and who provides the insurance are state-specific. Due to these differences in definition of disability, it is essential for the mental health professional performing a mental disability evaluation to clarify with the referral source or referring agency which legislation and laws they feel are directly relevant to the specific situation before starting the evaluation. While the ADA and ADA Amendments Act of 2008 have had the greatest impact on the improvement of conditions for mentally disabled individuals in employment over the last 25 years, they have also been the most challenging by far for mental health experts to understand and apply (Cook, ). Interestingly, the ADA has had a much quicker effect on improving access to services for the medically disabled as compared with the mentally disabled in the U.S. (Ullman, Johnsen, Moss, & Burris, ). This article reviews the history and status of current ADA- and ADAAA-related law and employment as well as Canadian disability law and global progress towards universal disability legislation as evidenced by the 2006 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The construction of access: the eugenic precedent of the Americans with Disabilities Act

This paper interrogates the language of the legal precedents of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and their function, including the 1891 Immigration Law and the series of ‘ugly laws’ that spanned from the late nineteenth century until the early twentieth century. Legislative language is used to construct and deploy static definitions of normalcy and disability, relying on ‘objective’ evidence couched in medical and scientific discourse. The purpose of this paper is to uncover the legislative precedents of the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA) that were motivated by the eugenicist imperative to strengthen the image of a productive and robust nation. I begin by outlining eugenicist logic and demonstrate how it functions within a semiotic system. Then, I will introduce the process by which eugenicist logic works within legal semiotics. Lastly, I will provide three examples of how this process functions in the legislative language and implementation of the 1891 Immigration Act, the ‘ugly laws’ and the ADAAA. Ultimately, I will demonstrate how all three provide evidence of a pattern of semiotic systems that pathologize human difference and manages these differences so as to segregate and disenfranchise in the name of nationalism.

The workplace discrimination experiences of people with multiple sclerosis across three phases of Americans with Disabilities Act implementation

BACKGROUND: This study investigated the experiences with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) of adults with multiple sclerosis (MS) across three phases of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) implementation: Phase I (pre-Sutton decision era, 1992–1999), Phase II (Sutton decision era, 2000–2008), and Phase III (ADA Amendments Act era, 2009–2011). OBJECTIVE: Research questions addressed differential (a) characteristics of charging parties and respondents, (b) patterns in the number and type of allegations, and (c) proportions of merit and non-merit EEOC judgments. METHODS: The study utilized data from the Integrated Mission System of the U.S. EEOC. RESULTS: Findings indicated that proportionally more women and Hispanic adults with MS filed claims during Phases II and III than during Phase I. More older individuals and African Americans with MS filed claims during Phase III than during Phases I and II. In Phase I, adults with MS were more likely to allege discrimination against smaller employers and less likely to file charges against larger employers, a trend that reversed during Phases II and III. The annual number of resolved EEOC charges appeared to increase during Phase I, increase then decrease in Phase II, and increase during Phase III. Regardless of phase, most allegations pertained to either unlawful discharge or failure to provide reasonable accommodations. Although higher in Phase III than in I, the percentage of EEOC merit decisions was highest in Phase II. CONCLUSION: Over time, more typically disenfranchised individuals sought ADA protections, possibly due to publicity, support from advocates, and membership in a culture supporting diversity and nondiscrimination. The increased number of resolved allegations in Phase III was consistent with the greater inclusiveness attributed to the ADA Amendments Act. Interpretation of other findings is provided regarding characteristics of respondents, types of allegations, and trends in EEOC merit decisions.

ADA at 25 and People With Cognitive Disabilities: From Voice to Action

AbstractThe Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, and the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) of 2008, are effecting dramatic changes in the perception of cognitive and other disabilities, from primarily viewing disability as a medical state to be cured and pitied toward acceptance of disability as an element of human experience and self-identity. The ADA's modern understanding of disability is as much shaped by diversity in biology, local culture, and self-identity over the life course, as it is by the barriers to inclusion we build and maintain in society. This view reflects the paradigm shift from the prior and dominating medical model to a social and environmental approach to disability civil and human rights. This two-part special issue of the journal Inclusion examines the ADA at its 25th anniversary. The articles reflect on the past 25 years, examine the present, and anticipate the future to ensure continued progress towards the civil and human rights of individuals with cognitive and other disabilities.

Registered nurses with disabilities: legal rights and responsibilities.

The purpose of this legal case review and analysis was to determine what kinds of cases involving nurses with disabilities are typically brought to attorneys, which cases tend to be successful, and how and when a nurse with a disability should pursue legal action. The review used the standard legal case analysis method to analyze legal cases that have been brought by registered nurses (RNs) with physical or sensory disabilities from 1995 to 2013. The cases span the period following the enactment of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 through the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) of 2008. A nurse attorney reviewed the background material to find every case involving an RN with a disability, excluding those with mental health disabilities or substance abuse issues. Case analysis was conducted using standard legal case analysis procedures. Fifty-six cases were analyzed. The cases were categorized into five types of legal claims: (a) disability discrimination (84%); (b) failure to accommodate (46%); (c) retaliation (12.5%); (d) association (3.6%); and (e) hostile work environment (7%). The cases were largely unsuccessful, particularly those brought under the ADA instead of the ADAAA. The case analysis revealed that several cases brought by RNs with disabilities using the ADA might have been successful under the ADAAA. In addition, the case analysis has provided vital information for administrators, leaders, and clinical nurses regarding when a case is appropriate for legal action. These findings from this review will help nurses recognize when they are being treated in a discriminatory way in the workplace, what their legal rights and responsibilities are, and at what point they should pursue legal action. This review has relevance to all RNs working in clinical and academic settings who may have a congenital or acquired physical or sensory disability.

Special Treatment Stigma after the ADA Amendments Act

This article explores a unique source of stigma suffered by individuals with disabilities in the workplace. Instead of focusing on those with the most stigmatizing disabilities, I focus on those individuals who have disabilities that are not perceived as very severe, yet they still suffer stigma. These individuals are stigmatized because of the special treatment they receive (or are perceived as receiving) through workplace accommodations provided pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In prior work, I have called this phenomenon “special treatment stigma,” the harm that arises from receiving special treatment in the workplace, especially when co-workers believe that the special treatment is unwarranted or unfair. In this article, I explore the scope and magnitude of the harm experienced by individuals with disabilities because of special treatment stigma. This stigma not only manifests itself in resentment and other negative treatment of individuals with disabilities by their co-workers; it also can cause employers to avoid accommodations that place any burdens on other employees, which often limits the ability to accommodate the employee with the disability. After describing the concept of special treatment stigma, this article turns to exploring whether the ADA Amendments Act will exacerbate or improve the problem of special treatment stigma. Because the ADA Amendments Act has made it much easier to prove that an individual has a disability and therefore might be entitled to a reasonable accommodation, it is likely that there will be many more individuals requesting and receiving workplace accommodations. Thus, these increased numbers could exacerbate the problem of special treatment stigma, especially if some of these individuals have what are perceived as relatively minor impairments. On the other hand, as more individuals are considered disabled under the ADA, we could possibly see a growing acceptance of individuals with disabilities; thus, requesting and receiving accommodations might become the “new normal.”

The New ADA Backlash

Many believe the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) suffered from a significant backlash by courts, only corrected by the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) in 2008. Following the ADAAA, it seemed likely the judicial backlash would continue in new ways. My analysis suggests that although the backlash has not happened as dramatically as some feared, there is reason to anticipate a new backlash against the ADA. The initial backlash to the ADA consisted of courts strictly interpreting the definition of disability so that very few cases made it past the threshold coverage question. This Article first seeks to determine whether courts are following Congress’s mandate in the ADAAA to broadly interpret the definition of disability, making it easier for an employee to get past the threshold question of whether the employee meets the statutory definition of disability. The answer to this first inquiry is “yes” — the courts are interpreting the definition of disability much more broadly, allowing many more plaintiffs to survive summary judgment on this issue. However, a new backlash may be coming, and it could take two forms. First, courts could broadly construe the “essential functions of the position,” giving great deference to what the employer designates as the essential functions and thereby excluding individuals with disabilities from protection. And second, courts could use the ambiguity of the word “reasonable,” to hold that many accommodations are not reasonable, thereby eliminating the available remedies for employees with disabilities. My analysis of court decisions on these issues since the passage of the ADAAA shows somewhat mixed results. The most interesting result is that there appears to be a real backlash against the ADA when the employee is requesting an accommodation related to the structural norms of the workplace — the hours, shift, schedule, attendance, and leave policies. Courts are quite reluctant to require employers to modify these structural norms of their workplaces. Based on this last conclusion, this paper explores why the structural norms of the workplace appear to be so immune to judicial scrutiny.

A New Era of Protection Against Disability Discrimination? The ADA Amendments Act of 2008 and “Regarded As” Disabled

Several U.S. Supreme Court rulings have substantially narrowed the coverage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) since its passage in 1990. Congress amended the ADA in 2008 to restore the original congressional intent of providing broad coverage for people with disabilities. This article seeks to determine whether the 2008 amendments are a mere technical adjustment of the ADA, or constitute significant legislation in their own right. A review of existing law, resulting regulations, and federal cases reveals that the amendments may promise much but deliver more of the same. Nevertheless, employers are well-advised to renew their efforts to cooperate with applicants and employees with disabilities, if for no other reason than to avoid a costly lawsuit that employers are perhaps now more likely to lose.