By: Daniel Egan
The Americans with Disabilities Act was enacted in 1990 with the
clear intent to eliminate discrimination in the workplace.
Unfortunately, a combination of ambiguous language used in the
statute and the federal courts’ unwillingness to abide by the
statutory language that is clear has significantly hindered the
ability of employees who have faced discrimination by their
employer to seek ADA protection. Absent adequate protection
from the ADA, many employees who have faced such discrimination
lack the footing upon which to bring a claim against their
employer.
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision in D’Angelo
v. ConAgra Foods, Inc. uncovered a number of flaws with the
text of the ADA and how these flaws have led to inconsistent
judicial interpretation. The D’Angelo Court
correctly departed from the decisions of several other Circuit
Courts and interpreted the statute as affording protection to
“regarded as” disabled individuals, in accordance with the explicit
text of the ADA. Other interpretational problems were left
unresolved, such as the standards for determining whether a person
is “substantially limited in a major life activity,” or who
comprises a statutorily “qualified” individual. This lack of
clarity in the statute has unduly harmed employees seeking ADA
protection. A clear, consistently applied standard must be
established for employees to enjoy the protection promised to them
by Congress.