New Disability Rules Under The ADA

The ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) significantly broadened the definition of disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act, reversing a series of Supreme Court decisions that had narrowed the law's coverage in ways Congress considered inconsistent with the ADA's original intent. The ADAAA expanded the definition of major life activities to include a comprehensive list of bodily functions—such as immune system function, cell growth, brain function, and neurological function—alongside the existing activities like seeing, hearing, walking, and working. The law also established that the determination of whether a condition substantially limits a major life activity should be made without considering the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures such as medications, prosthetics, hearing aids, or learned behavioral modifications. Additionally, the ADAAA clarified that episodic conditions or those in remission—such as cancer, epilepsy, or diabetes—must be evaluated in their active state when assessing whether they constitute a disability. The changes dramatically increased the number of conditions that qualify as disabilities under the ADA, shifting the primary focus of ADA litigation away from coverage disputes toward the interactive process and reasonable accommodation requirements. HR professionals must understand the expanded definition to correctly identify covered employees and fulfill accommodation obligations under the updated disability rules.

One of the most significant clarifications in the ADA Amendments Act is the treatment of episodic conditions and impairments in remission. Under the updated rules, an impairment that is episodic or in remission is considered a disability under the ADA if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active. This means conditions such as epilepsy, bipolar disorder, cancer, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, and post-traumatic stress disorder must be evaluated in their active state, not in the stabilized or remission phase the employee happens to be experiencing at the time of the accommodation request. This change prevents employers from denying ADA coverage to employees whose conditions are effectively managed through medication or treatment, which had previously been used as grounds to argue no disability existed. For HR professionals, this means that employees managing well-controlled chronic conditions may still have ADA rights and be entitled to reasonable accommodations—such as leave for medical appointments, schedule flexibility during flare periods, or modified duties during active episodes. Employers should train HR staff and managers to evaluate accommodation requests based on the nature of the underlying condition rather than the employee's current functional state, ensuring that individuals with episodic or recurring conditions receive the protections Congress intended under the expanded ADA disability framework.

The ADA protects individuals under three definitional prongs: having an actual physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity, having a record of such an impairment, and being regarded as having such an impairment. The regarded-as prong is particularly important because it protects employees from discrimination based on an employer's perception that they have a disability—even if the employee does not actually have one or does not consider themselves disabled. Under the ADA Amendments Act, this prong was significantly expanded: an employee is now regarded as disabled simply if they were subjected to a prohibited action—such as termination, demotion, or denial of a promotion—because of an actual or perceived physical or mental impairment, regardless of whether the impairment substantially limits any major life activity. This change eliminated a prior burden on employees to prove that the perceived impairment was substantially limiting. One important distinction under the ADAAA is that employees covered solely under the regarded-as prong are not entitled to reasonable accommodations—the accommodation obligation applies only to employees with actual disabilities or records of disability. However, all three prongs provide protection against discrimination. HR professionals must understand all three pathways to disability coverage to avoid unlawful adverse actions against employees perceived to have health conditions, regardless of their actual medical status.

Assessing whether an employee has a qualifying disability under the ADA requires an individualized analysis that focuses on how the impairment affects that specific person's ability to perform major life activities, rather than applying categorical assumptions based on a diagnosis alone. The determination should be made broadly and expansively, consistent with the ADAAA's instruction that the definition of disability be interpreted in favor of coverage. The relevant inquiry is whether the physical or mental impairment—considered without mitigating measures such as medication, assistive devices, or behavioral modifications—substantially limits one or more major life activities or bodily functions. The term substantially limits does not require severe restriction; a meaningful limitation is sufficient. Episodic conditions must be assessed in their active state. HR professionals should request appropriate medical documentation from a qualified healthcare provider focused on the nature and functional limitations of the condition, rather than requesting a specific diagnosis or speculating about whether a condition is serious enough to qualify. Documentation should be kept confidential in a separate medical file. Avoid making coverage determinations based on job performance or the employee's apparent functioning at work, as these may not reflect the full extent of the impairment. When in doubt, engaging in the interactive accommodation process is both legally prudent and practically beneficial for maintaining a compliant, inclusive workplace environment under the updated ADA disability rules.

The ADA prohibits a wide range of employer actions that constitute disability discrimination, and HR professionals must understand the full scope of these protections to maintain compliant practices. Prohibited actions include: refusing to hire a qualified individual because of a disability; terminating, demoting, or reducing pay because of an employee's disability; failing to provide reasonable accommodations that would enable a qualified disabled employee to perform the essential functions of their job; imposing performance standards that screen out disabled individuals unless the standards are job-related and consistent with business necessity; conducting disability-related medical inquiries or examinations that are not job-related; using qualification standards, employment tests, or selection criteria that disparately impact employees with disabilities; and retaliating against any employee for requesting an accommodation or participating in ADA-related proceedings. Under the regarded-as prong, employers also cannot discriminate against employees perceived as having a disability, even without an objective basis for that perception. Harassment based on disability status—if severe or pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment—is also prohibited. The interactive process obligation means that simply denying an accommodation without a good-faith exploration of alternatives may itself constitute discrimination. Regular training of managers and HR staff on these prohibitions is critical, as most ADA violations originate from supervisory decisions made without adequate understanding of the law's scope and requirements.