Amending the Americans with Disabilities Act

Abstract

This research examines changing public human resources obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). During the first 12 years after ADA implementation, the U.S. Supreme Court issued several rulings that narrowly construed who qualified as disabled (Albertson’s v. Kirkingburg; Murphy v. United Parcel Services; Sutton v. United Airlines; Toyota Motor Manufacturing v. Williams). In 2008, Congress responded to these judicial interpretations by specifically rejecting the Supreme Court’s analysis and unequivocally stating the intent to expand the scope of protection under the ADA. This interbranch dialog over ADA interpretation challenges public employers to predict responsibilities under shifting ADA requirements. Furthermore, analysis suggests that both the original statute and the 2008 Amendments Act suffer from a lack of clarity regarding who qualifies as disabled. Public human resource managers must evaluate how best to meet their ADA obligations in this climate of legal ambiguity and fiscal uncertainty.