Definition Of Disability Under The ADA

In its first interpretation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), the Supreme Court held in Bragdon v. Abbott that individuals who are infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) suffer from a disability protected under the ADA, even when the infection has not yet progressed to the symptomatic phase. The Court's ruling reflects a broad definition of the term "disability" under the ADA, and has the potential for generating a substantial amount of new litigation in settings broader than the HIV/health care setting in which it arose.

The ADA makes it unlawful for employers and certain public facilities to discriminate against individuals who are affected by a physical or mental impairment that substantially affects a major life activity. The Court found that the immediacy with which HIV attacks the body and its severity constituted a physical impairment from the moment of infection. Rejecting the presumption that being HIV-positive establishes a disability under the ADA, the Court held that asymptomatic HIV-positive individuals must establish that their impairment substantially limits a major life activity. The Court went on to hold, however, that reproduction is a major life activity substantially limited by HIV infection.

The case before the Supreme Court involved a dentist who refused to treat an HIV-positive patient in his office. The dentist offered instead to perform the dental work at a hospital where greater protection from transmission was available. The patient declined and sued under the ADA and state law. Although the Supreme Court held that the patient's HIV-positive status was a disability under the ADA, the Court remanded the case to determine whether the dentist's claim that treating the patient in his office was a direct threat to him was based on objective medical evidence.

Because the ADA's public accommodation and employment discrimination provisions both utilize the same definition of disability, the Supreme Court's decision will have a significant impact on health care providers and all employers. Moreover, the Court's expansive view of "disability" likely will affect numerous other physical and mental impairments in addition to HIV-positive status. Viewed broadly, the Court's definition of "disability" could result in lower courts erring on the side of finding a particular condition a disability even if it has a limited (or no) impact currently on the employee, such as a disease that appears to be in remission.

This White Paper is published to inform clients and friends of Morgan Lewis and should not be construed as providing legal advice on any specific matter.

This article is published to inform clients and friends of Morgan Lewis and should not be construed as providing advice on any specific matter.