The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission released the much anticipated Final Regulations implementing the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA). The ADAAA became effective on January 1, 2009. The Final Regulations will take effect on May 24, 2011.
The Final Regulations “make it easier for an individual seeking protection under the ADA to establish that he or she has a disability within the meaning of the ADA.” The ADAAA expanded the definition of who is “disabled” and emphasized an employer should focus on whether employers complied with their obligations under the law and whether discrimination, in fact, occurred, not whether individuals are disabled under the law. The Final Regulations provide rules of construction for employers to employ in determining if an individual is substantially limited, including:
· An impairment need not prevent or severely or significantly limit a major life activity to be considered “substantially limiting,” but noting that not every impairment will constitute a disability;
· Construing “substantially limits” broadly and in favor of coverage;
· Determining whether an individual suffers from a disability does not require an extensive analysis, but it requires an individualized assessment;
· Determining whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity is made without regard to the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures, such as medication or hearing aids, but employers can consider the effects of ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses on vision impairments;
· Determining whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity will not usually require scientific, medical, or statistical evidence;
· Finding that an impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it substantially limits a major life activity when active; and
· Finding that impairments lasting fewer than six months can be substantially limiting.
Employers should train supervisors and managers on the employer’s obligations pursuant to the ADAAA and the Final Regulations and provide clear guidelines for interacting with employees and prospective employees.
In Nini v. Mercer Community College, No. A-13/14-09 (N.J. June 1, 2010), the New Jersey Supreme Court upheld the Appellate Division’s 2009 decision holding that a contract renewal is equivalent to a termination; and does not, therefore, fall within the “over 70 exception” in the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“NJLAD”). Under the NJLAD “over 70 exception”, an employer is not engaged in an unlawful discriminatory practice if it refuses to accept for employment or [promotion] any applicant/employee over 70 years of age.
If you have any questions relating to the Nini decision or the current status of the NJLAD please do not hesitate to contact Robert A. Tandy, Esq. at (201) 474-7103.