Assistive Technology’s Impact on Disability Law Jason Fromal
Definition of Assistive Technology “any item, piece of equipment, or product system, whether acquired commercially, modified, or customized, that is used to increase, maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of individuals with disabilities” (186-187).
1990 ADA “The ADA defines disability as “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual,” and/or having a “record of,” and/or being “regarded” as, having an impairment” (110).
Sutton v. United Airlines (1999) • Holdings: – “Pilots’ uncorrected vision was physical impairment within meaning of ADA” – Mitigating Measures – No limitation of major life activity
Toyota v. Williams (2002) “It is insufficient for individuals attempting to prove disability status to merely submit evidence of a medical diagnosis of an impairment”
Supreme Court of Texas Little v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice (2004) • Holding – “Genuine issue of material fact as to whether applicant had physical impairment substantially limiting at least one major life activity”
Purposes of the 2008 ADAAA • “to reject the requirement enunciated by the Supreme Court in Sutton v. United Airlines” • “to reject the standards enunciated by the Supreme Court in Toyota v. Williams”
Exceptions to Mitigating Measures ADAAA affirmed that corrective lenses/glasses are able to be utilized as a mitigating measure to consider whether an individual is disabled
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Burlington Northern Railway Co. Court held that the conductor was not regarded as substantially limited in major life activity of walking/working
Ramos v. Pichis Hotel and Convention Center (2010) Employee claimed discrimination in violation of the ADA because he was not considered for a position due to suffering from epilepsy
Smith v. Valley Radiologists (2013) • Plaintiff asked that the jury would be given instructions on what has changed thanks to the ADAAA of 2008 – He was denied and the court would not explain these new laws to the jury
Daniel S. Fierro v. Knight Transportation • Court ruled that Fierro was not disabled under the ADAAA guidelines
Significance of retroactive rule • Very few applicable cases with new ADAAA legislation in place
Sources "ADA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008." Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008 . N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Apr. 2014. Daniel S. Fierro v. Knight Transportation. Westlaw. United States District Court of Texas. 18 Sept. 2012. Print. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. 621 Westlaw. United States District Court of Tennessee. 3 June 2009. Print. Evelyn Little v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice. 148 Westlaw. Supreme Court of Texas. 15 Oct. 2004. Print. Karen Sutton and Kimberly Hinton v. United Air Lines. 130 Westlaw. United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit. 26 Nov. 1997. Print. Mona Smith v. Valley Radiologists. Westlaw. United States District Court of Arizona. 10 Jan. 2013. Print. Pedro L. Ramos-Echevarria v. Pichis Hotel and Convention Center. 698 Westlaw. United States District Court. 22 Mar. 2010. Print. Toyota Motor Manufacturing v. Ella Williams. 534 Westlaw. Supreme Court of the United States. 8 Jan. 2002. Print.
Recommend
More recommend
