Deserving Disabilities: Why the Definition under the Americans with Disabilities Act Should Be Revised to Eliminate the Substantial Limitation Requirement
![handle is hein.journals/molr65 and id is 93 raw text is: Deserving Disabilities:
Why the Definition of Disability Under the
Americans with Disabilities Act Should Be
Revised to Eliminate the Substantial
Limitation Requirement
Cheryl L. Anderson*
I. INTRODUCTION
A commentator on a public radio program recently spoke in favor of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by asserting that [t]he blind, deaf,
and crippled really do deserve our help.' Although this commentator purported
to support the ADA, his actual message was that the definition of disability in
the Act is excessively vague and allows individuals not deserving of legal
protection, such as persons with back impairments and mental impairments, to,
in his words, [hitch] a ride on the disability bandwagon.2 His argument that
the ADA should reach only the claims of deserving individuals with
disabilities has had powerful resonance since the enactment of the ADA. Recent
United States Supreme Court rulings restricting the ADA's protected class
demonstrate the persuasiveness of this argument
Title I of the ADA prohibits discrimination against a qualified individual
with a disability who, with or without reasonable accommodations, can perform
the essential functions of the job in question.4 Disability is defined as a
physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life
activities, a record of such an impairment, or being regarded as having such
an impairment.' According to the view described above, the part of the
* B.A, J.D., LL.M., Assistant Professor of Law, Southern Illinois University School
of Law. The Author would like to thank Janet Jacobsen, R. J. Robertson, and Kevin
Shelley for their comments on earlier drafts of this Article, and Tanja Cook, Christian
Davis, and Christopher Stalets for their research assistance.
1. Commentary of David Manasian, Marketplace (Nat'l Pub. Radio broadcast, Oct.
16, 1998).
2. Id. The criticism has been echoed in other commentary. See, e.g., Don C.
Brunell, Mental Disorders at Work, SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER, June 15, 1997, at J1;
David Frum, Oh, My Aching Back (Head), FORBES, Nov. 8, 1993, at 64; Ruth Shalit,
Defining Disability Down: Why Johnny Can't Read, Write, or Sit Still, THE NEW
REPUBLIC, Aug. 25, 1997, at 16.
3. See Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 119 S. Ct. 2139 (1999) (holding that
individuals with correctable impairments that are not presently substantially limited in
any major life activities are not covered by the ADA's anti-discrimination provisions).
4. 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111(8), 12112 (a) (1994).
5. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2) (1994).](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/molr65&div=10&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most