Amendments to the Americans with Disabilities Act have Significant Ramifications to Employees Claiming Workers' Compensation Injuries and Medical Restrictions
Employees who are injured on the job and placed on lifting or other restrictions may find relief in the 2008 Amendments to the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "Amendments to the ADA"), which became law on January 1, 2009. Under the Amendments to the ADA, a person with a 20-pound lifting restriction that is not of short-term duration may qualify as a person with a "disability" under the law, to which the employer must provide a reasonable accommodation. Thus, if an employee who was injured on the job and has reached the maximum medical improvement, but still has medical restrictions, he should request a reasonable accommodation from his employer so that he or she can continue working with his or her disability.
One of the most important ramifications of the Amendments to the ADA is in the definition of what constitutes a "disability" under the law. Specifically, the Amendments to the ADA specifically overruled the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184, 122 S.Ct. 681, 151 L.Ed.2d 615 (2002), where the Court held in order to show that a plaintiff has a disability, he or she must show that his or her impairment substantially limits one or more major life activities that are of "central importance to most people's daily lives." In that case, the employee worked on the assembly line of an automobile manufacturing plant, where she developed several work-related ailments, including bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and bilateral tendinitis due to the manual work that she performed. She filed a claim under the Kentucky Workers' Compensation statute and was treated, but was placed on lifting and other restrictions. The employee was eventually fired and it was unclear whether it was because she missed work due to her injuries and/or refused to work in the rotation required by the employer. The U.S. Supreme Court found that she did have a "disability" under the ADA because she did not show that her impairments substantially limited one or more major life activities that are of "central importance to most people's daily lives."
Based on this decision, courts have routinely held that an employee's inability to consistently lift heavy weights due to a work-related injury was not a disability under the ADA. However, the Amendments to the ADA change all that and specifically provide that an individual need not demonstrate a limitation in the ability to perform activities of central importance to daily life. Now, someone with a medical restriction that is not of short-term duration is a person with a "disability" under the law and the employer must provide a reasonable accommodation so that he or she can continue working.
