STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE ADA RESTORATION
ACT OF 2007 (H.R. 3195)
The Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) – a coalition of over 100 national
consumer, advocacy, provider, and professional organizations who advocate on
behalf of people of all ages with physical and mental disabilities and their families –
commends the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary for
offering this forum for an open discussion on the ADA Restoration Act of 2007 and its
promise to end exclusion and inequality for the millions of Americans with disabilties.
The Consortium also commends the leadership and vision of Chairman John Conyers,
Jr. (D-MI), Ranking Member Lamar S. Smith, and Committee Member James
Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-WI), as well as that of Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Chairman of
the Subcommittee on the Constitution, and Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), Ranking
Member. Additionally, CCD recognizes the incredible commitment and leadership of
Majority Leader Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), who has been a champion of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and all those it serves for the past 17 years.
As a coalition that works to achieve federal legislation and regulations that assure that
the 54 million children and adults with disabilities are fully integrated into the mainstream
of society, CCD strongly supports the passage of the ADA Restoration Act of 2007.
Seventeen years ago, the ADA was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support and
signed into law by President George H.W. Bush. Congress’s intent was clear: make this
great nation’s promise of equality and freedom a reality for Americans with disabilities.
Through this broad mandate, Congress intended to protect anyone who is treated
less favorably because of a current, past, or perceived disability. As with other civil
rights laws, Congress wanted to focus on whether an individual could prove that he
or she had been treated less favorably because of a personal characteristic that is
prohibited from being considered in employment decisions (e.g., race or sex for Title
VII and disability for the ADA). Congress never intended for the courts to use the
definition of “disability” as a means of excluding individuals with serious health
conditions like epilepsy, diabetes, cancer, HIV, muscular dystrophy, mental health
conditions, and multiple sclerosis.
However, the Supreme Court and the lower courts have dramatically changed the
meaning of “disability” under the ADA. Through a series of decisions interpreting the
definition of disability narrowly, the Supreme Court has shifted the focus away from
an employer’s alleged misconduct and onto whether an individual can first meet a
“demanding standard for qualifying as disabled.”
This creates an absurd Catch-22 which allows employers to say a person is “too
disabled” to do the job but not “disabled enough” to be protected by the law. The
case is thrown out of court without the individual ever having the chance to prove
they can do the job:
1660 L Street, NW, Suite 701 • Washington, DC 20036 • PH 202/783-2229 • FAX 202/783-8250
[email protected] • www.c-c-d.org
 People who manage their disabilities with medication, prosthetics, hearing aids,
etc. – or “mitigating measures” – are viewed as “too functional” to have a disability
and are denied the ADA’s protection from employment discrimination.
 People denied a job or fired because an employer mistakenly believes they cannot
perform the job – or because the employer does not want “people like that” in the
workplace – are also denied the ADA’s protection from employment discrimination.*
This is not what Congress intended when it passed the ADA in 1990.
Most employers and businesses try to do the right thing with regard to people with
disabilities. But for those who don’t, those who discriminate against people with
disabilities, the courts must be available to ensure that people with disabilities have
the same opportunities to work and be a part of everyday society.
Passage of the ADA Restoration Act of 2007 is critical to restoring the intent of
Congress when it originally passed the ADA.
As Rep. Steny Hoyer stated when he introduced the ADA Restoration Act of 2007 on July
26, 2007, “the point of the ADA is not disability; it is the prevention of wrongful and
unlawful discrimination.” The courts have spent an exorbitant amount of time parsing the
question of whether a person is really “disabled,” when the real question is whether the
person was treated unfairly on the basis of an irrelevant personal characteristic (disability).
Courts do not require people alleging race or sex discrimination under other civil rights
laws to first prove their race or gender – instead, they look at whether race or gender was
the basis for the adverse action. Under the ADA, however, before a court will hear a
person’s discrimination claim, the person is currently required to first prove in excruciating
detail how “disabled” he or she is. This is not what Congress intended in the original ADA.
Instead, as Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner said when he joined Mr. Hoyer in the introduction
of the ADA Restoration Act of 2007, this bill helps ensure that the ADA takes its rightful
place among other civil rights laws, and “will force courts to focus on whether a person
has experienced discrimination ‘on the basis of disability,’ rather than require
individuals to demonstrate that they fall within the scope of the law’s protection” at all.
That was what Congress originally intended – to focus a spotlight on unfair
discrimination against people with a broad range of disabilities.
When Congress passed the ADA, when President George H. W. Bush signed the
law, and when Attorney General Dick Thornburgh promulgated regulations to
implement the law, the intent of the ADA was crystal clear – the law was intended to
apply to everyone who experienced discrimination on the basis of disability, not just
those with severe disabilities. Congress did not expect its legislative history, and prior
case precedent, to be ignored.
CCD urges Congress to pass the ADA Restoration Act (H.R. 3195), restoring the
original intent of Congress to ensure the right to be judged based on performance,
harmonizing the ADA with other civil rights laws, and requiring the courts to interpret
the law fairly.
A sampling of case stories are captured in a companion document, “The Effect of the Supreme
Court’s Decisions on People with Disabilities,” available on CCD’s website, at www.c-c-d.org/ADA.
*