ADA Amendments Act of 2008

ADA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008 -- (House of Representatives - September 17, 2008)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. BALDWIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of S. 3406, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Amendments Act.

This vital legislation restores the civil rights protections that Congress intended for people with disabilities in passing the ADA in 1990. In the years since passage of the ADA, courts--including the U.S. Supreme Court--have narrowed the protective reach of this law, undermining Congress' intent. It is flatly unacceptable that Americans who experienced disability-based discrimination have been denied protection of the ADA and barred from challenging discriminatory conduct. This bill is an important and necessary remedy, and I'm grateful to our champions in the House, Mr. HOYER and Mr. SENSENBRENNER, as well as Senator HARKIN and others who shepherded the ADA Amendments Act through the Senate.

Importantly, the ADA Amendments Act addresses the restrictive interpretation of what it means to have a ``disability'' and therefore be protected against disability discrimination. In Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, the Supreme Court ruled that the definition of disability must be read ``strictly to create a demanding standard for qualifying as disabled'' and, to meet the definition, 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.''

Due to that and other narrow court interpretations, people with HIV who have been fired, not hired, or suffered other adverse employment actions have been denied the protections of the ADA. Although the ADA clearly intended to protect people living with HIV from being discriminated against based on having HIV, many have had their lawsuits derailed by disputes over whether they meet a narrowly interpreted definition of the term ``disability.'' For people living with HIV, all too often whether or not they could proceed with their discrimination claim has turned on the court's view of evidence as to their child-bearing ability and intentions: highly personal, intimate matters that are completely unrelated to the discrimination they experienced.

The ADA Amendments Act remedies the courts' misinterpretation of the ADA by explicitly stating that the definition of ``disability'' must be interpreted broadly to achieve the ADA's remedial purposes, by clarifying the definition of ``disability'' through examples of ``major life activities,'' and by providing that the determination of whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity must be made without regard to the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures. Of significance for people living with HIV, among the listed examples of ``major life activities'' are ``functions of the immune system,'' as well as ``reproductive functions.'' Under these new provisions, many individuals who were incorrectly denied coverage under the ADA will now be protected from discrimination. Some examples follow:

Rubin Cruz Carrillo was fired from his job as a flight attendant 1 day after he told his employer that he had been diagnosed with HIV and asked to speak with his supervisors about this under ``strict confidentiality.'' Because he was fired immediately after disclosing his HIV status, Rubin believed that the airline terminated him because of his disability and filed suit under the ADA. To show that his HIV infection ``substantially limits'' a ``major life activity,'' Rubin explained that he decided not to have children because of the risk of infecting his female partner or their resulting child through unprotected sexual intercourse. The trial judge discounted his testimony, saying that Rubin was ``not an expert in the medical field of immunology or reproduction.'' The court concluded that Rubin had not established that he had a ``disability'' because he failed to introduce medical evidence that HIV substantially limits a man's ability to reproduce. Therefore, the court ruled Rubin was not entitled to the protections of the ADA.

In contrast, another judge on the same Federal district court found that a female with HIV was entitled to ADA protection. Yesenia Rodriguez alleged that she was discharged from an assignment because she had HIV. The court found that she was ``disabled'' under the meaning of the ADA, based on her testimony that she decided not to have more children due to the possibility of transmitting HIV to her child if she did.

Other courts have granted summary judgment for employers (dismissing discrimination claims) on the grounds that the employee with HIV did not establish that his HIV was a ``disability.'' For example, Fabio Gutwaks'' discrimination claim was dismissed after the court concluded that he had failed to establish that he was substantially limited in the major life activity of reproduction because he testified that he did not currently, or previously, desire to father children. Similarly, Albenjamin Blanks' claim was dismissed after he testified that he and his wife had decided not to have any more children long before the discriminatory conduct occurred and that his wife had undergone a procedure to prevent her from having any more children.

The ADA was meant to prohibit discrimination against people with disabilities. Yet, many people with HIV have been denied coverage under the ADA and therefore left without any legal recourse against discrimination. Under the ADA Amendments Act, these men and women will all be assured legal protection for discrimination based on their HIV status, irrespective of their child-bearing intentions or lack of expert testimony about HIV's impact on child-bearing.

By passing the ADA Amendments Act, we reaffirm the right for American workers--including any American living with HIV--to be judged based upon their skills, talents, loyalty, character, integrity and work ethic. I am pleased to support this bill to ensure that all Americans have a fair opportunity to work.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source