[Nfbf-l] All Question and Answers From EEOC

[MisterAdvocate at aol.com]

All Questions and Answers on the Final Rule Implementing the  ADA 
Amendments Act of 2008
The ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) was enacted on September 25, 2008, 
and  became effective on January 1, 2009. This law made a number of 
significant  changes to the definition of “disability.” It also directed the U.S. 
Equal  Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to amend its ADA regulations 
to reflect  the changes made by the ADAAA. The final regulations will be 
published in the  Federal Register on March 25, 2011. 
The EEOC is making changes to both the Title I ADA regulations and to the  
Interpretive Guidance (also known as the Appendix) that was published with 
the  original ADA regulations. The Appendix provides further explanation on 
how the  regulations should be interpreted. 
The questions and answers below provide information on the changes made to  
the regulations as a result of the ADAAA and identify certain regulations 
that  remain the same. The answers below also note where the final 
regulations differ  from what appeared in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 
that was  published September 23, 2009. Finally, answers to certain questions 
provide  citations to specific sections of the final regulations and the 
corresponding  section of the Appendix (29 C.F.R. section 1630). 
1. Does the ADAAA apply to discriminatory acts that occurred prior to  
January 1, 2009?
No. The ADAAA does not apply retroactively. For example, the ADAAA would 
not  apply to a situation in which an employer, union, or employment agency 
allegedly  failed to hire, terminated, or denied a reasonable accommodation to 
someone with  a disability in December 2008, even if the person did not 
file a charge with the  EEOC until after January 1, 2009. The original ADA 
definition of disability  would be applied to such a charge. However, the ADAAA 
would apply to denials of  reasonable accommodation where a request was made 
(or an earlier request was  renewed) or to other alleged discriminatory 
acts that occurred on or after  January 1, 2009. 
2. What is the purpose of the ADAAA?
Among the purposes of the ADAAA is the reinstatement of a “broad scope of  
protection” by expanding the definition of the term “disability.” Congress 
found  that persons with many types of impairments – including epilepsy, 
diabetes,  multiple sclerosis, major depression, and bipolar disorder – had 
been unable to  bring ADA claims because they were found not to meet the ADA’s 
definition of  “disability.” Yet, Congress thought that individuals with 
these and other  impairments should be covered. The ADAAA explicitly rejected 
certain Supreme  Court interpretations of the term “disability” and a 
portion of the EEOC  regulations that it found had inappropriately narrowed the 
definition of  disability. As a result of the ADAAA and EEOC’s final 
regulations, it will be  much easier for individuals seeking the law’s protection to 
demonstrate that  they meet the definition of “disability.” As a result, 
many more ADA claims will  focus on the merits of the case. 
3. Do all of the changes in the ADAAA apply to other titles of the ADA and  
provisions of the Rehabilitation Act prohibiting disability discrimination 
by  federal agencies, federal contractors, and recipients of federal 
financial  assistance?
Yes. The ADAAA specifically states that all of its changes also apply to: 
    *   section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act (federal employment), 
    *   section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act (federal contractors), and 
    *   section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (recipients of federal 
financial  assistance and services and programs of federal agencies).
The changes to the definition of disability also apply to all of the ADA’s  
titles, including Title II (programs and activities of State and local  
government entities) and Title III (private entities that are considered places 
 of public accommodation). A few provisions of the ADAAA affect only the 
portions  of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act concerning employment, such as 
a provision  that requires covered entities to show that qualification 
standards that screen  out individuals based on uncorrected vision are 
job-related and consistent with  business necessity, and changes to the general 
prohibition of discrimination in  § 102 of the ADA. 
The EEOC’s final regulations apply to Title I of the ADA and section 501 of 
 the Rehabilitation Act, but they do not apply to Titles II and III of the 
ADA,  or sections 503 and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. 
4. Who is required to comply with these regulations?
These regulations apply to all private and state and local government  
employers with 15 or more employees, employment agencies, labor organizations  
(unions), and joint labor-management committees. [Section 1630.2(b)]  
Additionally, section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act applies to federal executive  
branch agencies regardless of the number of employees they have. The use of 
the  term “covered entity” in this Q&A and the Appendix refers to all such  
entities. 
5. How does the ADAAA define “disability?”
The ADAAA and the final regulations define a disability using a 
three-pronged  approach: 
    *   a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or 
more  major life activities (sometimes referred to in the regulations as an “
actual  disability”), or 
    *   a record of a physical or mental impairment that substantially 
limited a  major life activity (“record of”), or 
    *   when a covered entity takes an action prohibited by the ADA because 
of an  actual or perceived impairment that is not both transitory and minor 
 (“regarded as”). [Section 1630.2(g)]
6. Must individuals use a particular prong of the definition of disability  
when challenging a covered entity’s actions?
Not necessarily. Claims for denial of reasonable accommodation must be  
brought under one or both of the first two prongs of the definition of  
disability ( i.e., an actual disability and/or a record of a disability) since  the 
ADAAA specifically states that those covered under only the “regarded as”  
definition are not entitled to reasonable accommodation. While other types 
of  allegations ( e.g., failure to hire or promote, termination, harassment) 
may be  brought under any of the definitions, an individual may find it 
easier to claim  coverage under the “regarded as” definition of disability. An 
individual only  has to meet one of the three prongs of the definition of “
disability.” [Section  1630.2(g)(3) and Appendix Section 1630.2(g)] 
7. How do the regulations define the term “physical or mental  impairment”?
The regulations define “physical or mental impairment” as any 
physiological  disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss 
affecting one  or more body systems, such as neurological, musculoskeletal, special 
sense  organs, respiratory (including speech organs), cardiovascular, 
reproductive,  digestive, genitourinary, immune, circulatory, hemic, lymphatic, 
skin and  endocrine. They also cover any mental or psychological disorder, 
such as  intellectual disability (formerly termed mental retardation), organic 
brain  syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and specific learning 
disabilities.  [Section 1630.2(h)] 
The definition of “impairment” in the new regulations is almost identical 
to  the definition in EEOC’s original ADA regulations, except that the 
immune and  circulatory systems have been added to the list of body systems that 
may be  affected by an impairment, because these systems are specifically 
mentioned in  the ADAAA’s examples of major bodily functions. (See Question 
8.) 
8. What are “major life activities?”
The final regulations provide a non-exhaustive list of examples of major 
life  activities: caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, 
hearing,  eating, sleeping, walking, standing, sitting, reaching, lifting, bending, 
 speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, 
communicating,  interacting with others, and working. Most of these examples are 
taken from the  ADAAA, which in turn adopted them from the original ADA 
regulations and EEOC  guidances, or from ADA and Rehabilitation Act case law. 
The final regulations also state that major life activities include the  
operation of major bodily functions, including functions of the immune  
system, special sense organs and skin, normal cell growth, digestive,  
genitourinary, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory,  
cardiovascular, endocrine, hemic, lymphatic, musculoskeletal, and reproductive  
functions. Although not specifically stated in the NPRM, the final regulations  
state that major bodily functions include the operation of an individual 
organ  within a body system ( e.g., the operation of the kidney, liver, or  
pancreas). 
As a result of the ADAAA’s recognition of major bodily functions as major  
life activities, it will be easier to find that individuals with certain 
types  of impairments have a disability. (For examples of impairments affecting 
major  bodily functions that should easily be concluded to meet the first 
or second  part of the definition of “disability,” see Question 19.) 
9. When does an impairment “substantially limit” a major life activity?
To have an “actual” disability (or to have a “record of” a disability) an 
 individual must be (or have been) substantially limited in performing a 
major  life activity as compared to most people in the general population. 
Consistent  with the ADAAA, the final regulations adopt “rules of construction”
 to use when  determining if an individual is substantially limited in 
performing a major life  activity. These rules of construction include the 
following: 
    *   An impairment need not prevent or severely or significantly limit a 
major  life activity to be considered “substantially limiting.” 
Nonetheless, not  every impairment will constitute a disability. 
    *   The term “substantially limits” should be construed broadly in 
favor of  expansive coverage to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of 
the  ADA. 
    *   The determination of whether an impairment substantially limits a 
major  life activity requires an individualized assessment. 
    *   In keeping with Congress’ direction that the primary focus of the 
ADA is  on whether discrimination occurred, the determination of disability 
should not  require extensive analysis. 
    *   Although determination of whether an impairment substantially 
limits a  major life activity as compared to most people will not usually require 
 scientific, medical, or statistical evidence, such evidence may be used if 
 appropriate. 
    *   An individual need only be substantially limited, or have a record 
of a  substantial limitation, in one major life activity to be covered under 
the  first or second prong of the definition of “disability.”
Other rules of construction are discussed in more detail in Questions 
10-17.  [Section 1630.2(j)(1)(i-v) and (viii)] 
10. Do the final regulations require that an impairment last a particular  
length of time to be considered substantially limiting?
No. As discussed in Question 25, the ADAAA excludes from “regarded as”  
coverage an actual or perceived impairment that is both transitory ( i.e., 
will  last fewer than six months) and minor. However, neither the ADAAA nor the 
final  regulations apply this exception found in the “regarded as” 
definition of  disability to the other two definitions of disability. One of the “
rules of  construction” states that the effects of an impairment lasting 
fewer than six  months can be substantially limiting. [Section 1630.2(j)(1)(ix)] 
11. Can impairments that are episodic or in remission be considered  
disabilities?
Yes. The ADAAA and the final regulations specifically state that an  
impairment that is episodic or in remission meets the definition of disability  if 
it would substantially limit a major life activity when active. This means  
that chronic impairments with symptoms or effects that are episodic rather 
than  present all the time can be a disability even if the symptoms or 
effects would  only substantially limit a major life activity when the impairment 
is active.  The Appendix provides examples of impairments that may be 
episodic, including  epilepsy, hypertension, asthma, diabetes, major depressive 
disorder, bipolar  disorder, and schizophrenia. An impairment such as cancer 
that is in remission  but that may possibly return in a substantially 
limiting form will also be a  disability under the ADAAA and the final 
regulations. [Section 1630.2(j)(1)(vii)  and corresponding Appendix section] 
12. What are mitigating measures?
Mitigating measures eliminate or reduce the symptoms or impact of an  
impairment. The ADAAA and the final regulations provide a non-exhaustive list of  
examples of mitigating measures. They include medication, medical equipment 
and  devices, prosthetic limbs, low vision devices ( e.g., devices that 
magnify a  visual image), hearing aids, mobility devices, oxygen therapy 
equipment, use of  assistive technology, reasonable accommodations, and learned 
behavioral or  adaptive neurological modifications. In addition, the final 
regulations add  psychotherapy, behavioral therapy, and physical therapy to the 
ADAAA’s list of  examples. [Section 1630.2(j)(5)] 
13. May the positive effects of mitigating measures in limiting the impact  
of an impairment on performance of a major life activity be considered when 
 determining whether someone has a disability?
No, except for ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses (see Question 14). The 
 ADAAA and the final regulations direct that the positive (or ameliorative) 
 effects from an individual’s use of one or more mitigating measures be 
ignored  in determining if an impairment substantially limits a major life 
activity. In  other words, if a mitigating measure eliminates or reduces the 
symptoms or  impact of an impairment, that fact cannot be used in determining 
if a person  meets the definition of disability. Instead, the determination 
of disability  must focus on whether the individual would be substantially 
limited in  performing a major life activity without the mitigating measure. 
This may mean  focusing on the extent of limitations prior to use of a 
mitigating measure or on  what would happen if the individual ceased using a 
mitigating measure. [Section  1630.2(j)(1)(vi) and corresponding Appendix 
section] 
14. Does the rule concerning mitigating measures apply to people whose  
vision is corrected with ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses?
No. “Ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses” – defined in the ADAAA and the 
 final regulations as lenses that are “intended to fully correct visual 
acuity or  to eliminate refractive error” – must be considered when 
determining whether  someone has a disability. For example, a person who wears 
ordinary eyeglasses  for a routine vision impairment is not, for that reason, a 
person with a  disability under the ADA. The regulations do not establish a 
specific level of  visual acuity for determining whether eyeglasses or contact 
lenses should be  considered “ordinary.” This determination should be made 
on a case-by-case basis  in light of current and objective medical evidence. 
[Sections 1630.2(j)(1)(vi)  and (j)(6) and corresponding Appendix sections] 
15. May the negative effects of a mitigating measure be taken into account  
in determining whether an individual meets the definition of “disability?”
Yes. The ADAAA allows consideration of the negative effects of a mitigating 
 measure in determining if a disability exists. For example, the side 
effects  that an individual experiences from use of medication for hypertension 
may be  considered in determining whether the individual is substantially 
limited in a  major life activity. However, it will often be unnecessary to 
consider the  non-ameliorative effects of mitigating measures in order to 
determine whether an  individual has a disability. For example, it is unnecessary 
to consider the  burdens associated with receiving dialysis treatment for 
someone whose kidney  function would be substantially limited without this 
treatment. [Section  1630.2(j)(4)(ii)] 
16. May the positive or negative effects of mitigating measures be  
considered when assessing whether someone is entitled to reasonable  accommodation 
or poses a direct threat?
Yes. The ADAAA’s prohibition on assessing the positive effects of 
mitigating  measures applies only to the determination of whether an individual meets 
the  definition of “disability.” All other determinations – including the 
need for a  reasonable accommodation and whether an individual poses a 
direct threat – can  take into account both the positive and negative effects of 
a mitigating  measure. The negative effects of mitigating measures may 
include side effects or  burdens that using a mitigating measure might impose. 
For example, someone with  diabetes may need breaks to take insulin and 
monitor blood sugar levels, and  someone with kidney disease may need a modified 
work schedule to receive  dialysis treatments. On the other hand, if an 
individual with a disability uses  a mitigating measure that results in no 
negative effects and eliminates the need  for a reasonable accommodation, a 
covered entity will have no obligation to  provide one. 
17. Can a covered entity require that an individual use a mitigating  
measure?
No. A covered entity cannot require an individual to use a mitigating  
measure. However, failure to use a mitigating measure may affect whether an  
individual is qualified for a particular job or poses a direct threat. 
[Appendix  Section 1630.2(j)(1)(vi)] 
18. After an individualized assessment is done, are there certain  
impairments that will virtually always be found to result in substantial  limitation 
in performing certain major life activities?
Yes. Certain impairments, due to their inherent nature and the extensive  
changes Congress made to the definitions of “major life activities” and  “
substantially limits,” will virtually always be disabilities. (See Questions  
8-11 and 13.) For these impairments, the individualized assessment should be 
 particularly simple and straightforward. 
19. Do the regulations give any examples of specific impairments that will  
be easily concluded to substantially limit a major life activity?
Yes. The regulations identify examples of specific impairments that should  
easily be concluded to be disabilities and examples of major life 
activities  (including major bodily functions) that the impairments substantially 
limit. The  impairments include: deafness, blindness, intellectual disability 
(formerly  known as mental retardation), partially or completely missing 
limbs, mobility  impairments requiring use of a wheelchair, autism, cancer, 
cerebral palsy,  diabetes, epilepsy, HIV infection, multiple sclerosis, muscular 
dystrophy, major  depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic 
stress disorder,  obsessive-compulsive disorder, and schizophrenia. [Section 
1630.2(j)(3)] 
20. May the condition, manner, or duration under which a major life 
activity  can be performed be considered in determining whether an impairment is a  
disability?
Yes. The Commission did not include the concepts of “condition, manner, or  
duration” (used in the original ADA regulations published in 1991) in the 
NPRM,  believing that use of the terms might lead to the kind of excessive 
focus on the  definition of “disability” that Congress sought to avoid. In 
response to  comments on behalf of both employers and individuals with 
disabilities, however,  we have included the concepts of condition, manner, or 
duration (where duration  refers to the length of time it takes to perform a 
major life activity or the  amount of time the activity can be performed) in 
the final regulations as facts  that may be considered if relevant. But, with 
respect to many impairments,  including those that should easily be 
concluded to be disabilities (see Question  19), it may be unnecessary to use these 
concepts to determine whether the  impairment substantially limits a major 
life activity. 
Assessing the condition, manner, or duration under which a major life  
activity can be performed may include consideration of the difficulty, effort,  
or time required to perform a major life activity; pain experienced when  
performing a major life activity; the length of time a major life activity can 
 be performed; and/or the way an impairment affects the operation of a 
major  bodily function. [Section 1630.2(j)(4)(i) and (ii) and corresponding 
Appendix  section] 
21. When is someone substantially limited in the major life activity of  
working?
In certain situations, an impairment may limit someone’s ability to perform 
 some aspect of his or her job, but otherwise not substantially limit any 
other  major life activity. In these situations, the individual may be 
substantially  limited in working. However, with all of the changes made by the 
ADAAA, in  particular the inclusion of major bodily functions as major life 
activities and  revisions to the “regarded as” prong of the definition of “
disability,” it  should generally be unnecessary to determine whether someone 
is substantially  limited in working. [Appendix Section 1630.2(j)] 
The final regulations, unlike the NPRM, do not mention the major life  
activity of working other than by its inclusion in the list of major life  
activities (see Question 8). However, the Appendix discusses how to determine  
substantial limitation in a number of major life activities, including 
working.  The Appendix discussion of working, unlike the NPRM, states that 
substantial  limitation in this major life activity will be made with reference to 
difficulty  performing either a “class or broad range of jobs in various 
classes” rather  than a “type of work.” The Appendix also notes that a “class” 
of work may be  determined by reference to the nature of the work ( e.g., 
commercial truck  driving or assembly line jobs), or by reference to 
job-related requirements that  an individual is limited in meeting ( e.g., jobs 
requiring extensive walking,  prolonged standing, and repetitive or heavy 
lifting). Demonstrating a  substantial limitation in performing the unique aspects 
of a single specific job  is not sufficient to establish that a person is 
substantially limited in the  major life activity of working. 
22. Does the ADA still exclude from coverage a person who is illegally 
using  drugs?
Yes. The ADAAA did not make changes to the part of the ADA that excludes 
from  coverage a person who currently engages in the illegal use of drugs when 
a  covered entity acts on the basis of such use. However, the ADA also 
still says  that a person who no longer engages in the illegal use of drugs may 
be an  individual with a disability if he or she: 
    *   has successfully completed a supervised drug rehabilitation program 
or has  otherwise been rehabilitated successfully, or 
    *   is participating in a supervised rehabilitation program ( e.g., 
Alcoholics  Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous). [Section 1630.3(a)-(b)]
23. Is pregnancy a disability under the ADAAA?
No. Pregnancy is not an impairment and therefore cannot be a disability.  
Certain impairments resulting from pregnancy ( e.g., gestational diabetes),  
however, may be considered a disability if they substantially limit a major 
life  activity, or if they meet one of the other two definitions of 
disability  discussed below. [Appendix Section 1630.2(h)] 
24. When does an individual have a “record of” a disability?
An individual who does not currently have a substantially limiting 
impairment  but who had one in the past meets this definition of “disability.” An 
individual  also can meet the “record of” definition of disability if she 
was once  misclassified as having a substantially limiting impairment ( e.g., 
someone  erroneously deemed to have had a learning disability but who did 
not). 
All of the changes to the first definition of disability discussed in the  
questions above – including the expanded list of major life activities, the  
lower threshold for finding a substantial limitation, the clarification 
that  episodic impairments or those in remission may be disabilities, and the  
requirement to disregard the positive effects of mitigating measures – will  
apply to evaluating whether an individual meets the “record of” definition 
of  disability. [Section 1630.2(k) and corresponding Appendix section] 
25. What does it mean for a covered entity to “regard” an individual as  
having a disability?
Under the ADAAA and the final regulations, a covered entity “regards” an  
individual as having a disability if it takes an action prohibited by the 
ADA (  e.g., failure to hire, termination, or demotion) based on an individual’
s  impairment or on an impairment the covered entity believes the 
individual has,  unless the impairment is transitory (lasting or expected to last for 
six months  or less) and minor. This new formulation of “regarded as” 
having a disability is  different from the original ADA formulation, which 
required an individual  seeking coverage under this part of the definition to 
show that a covered entity  believed the individual’s impairment (or perceived 
impairment) substantially  limited performance of a major life activity. 
[Section  1630.2(l)(1)] 
A covered entity will regard an individual as having a disability any time 
it  takes a prohibited action against the individual because of an actual or 
 perceived impairment, regardless of whether the covered entity asserts, or 
even  ultimately establishes, a defense for its action. As discussed in 
Question 26,  the legality of the covered entity’s actions is a separate 
inquiry into the  merits of the claim. [Section 1630.2(l)(2)] 
The final regulations state that a covered entity may challenge a claim 
under  the “regarded as” prong by showing that the impairment in question, 
whether  actual or perceived, is both transitory and minor. In other words, 
whether the  impairment in question is transitory and minor is a defense 
available to covered  entities. However, a covered entity may not defeat a claim 
by asserting it  believed an impairment was transitory and minor when 
objectively this is not the  case. For example, an employer that fires an employee 
because he has bipolar  disorder, or an employment agency that refuses to 
refer an applicant because he  has bipolar disorder, cannot assert that it 
believed the impairment was  transitory and minor because bipolar disorder is 
not objectively transitory and  minor. [Section 1630.15(f) and corresponding 
Appendix section] 
26. If a covered entity regards an individual as having a disability, does  
that automatically mean the covered entity has discriminated against the  
individual?
No. The fact that a covered entity’s action may have been based on an  
impairment does not necessarily mean that a covered entity engaged in unlawful  
discrimination. For example, an individual still needs to be qualified for 
the  job he or she holds or desires. Additionally, in some instances, a 
covered  entity may have a defense to an action taken on the basis of an 
impairment, such  as where a particular individual would pose a direct threat or 
where the covered  entity’s action was required by another federal law ( e.g., 
a law that prohibits  individuals with certain impairments from holding 
certain kinds of jobs). As  under current law, a covered entity will be held 
liable only when an individual  proves that the entity engaged in unlawful 
discrimination under the ADA.  [Sections 1630.2(l)(3) and 1630.2(o)(4), and 
Appendix Sections  1630.2(l) and (o)] 
27. Does an individual have to establish coverage under a particular  
definition of disability to be eligible for a reasonable accommodation?
Yes. Individuals must meet either the “actual” or “record of” definitions 
of  disability to be eligible for a reasonable accommodation. Individuals 
who  only meet the “regarded as” definition are not entitled to receive  
reasonable accommodation. Of course, coverage under the “actual” or “record of”
  definitions does not, alone, entitle a person to a reasonable 
accommodation. An  individual must be able to show that the disability, or past 
disability,  requires a reasonable accommodation. [Sections 1630.2(k)(3), 
1630.2(o)(4),  1630.9(e)] 
28. What do the final regulations say about qualification standards based 
on  uncorrected vision?
The ADAAA and the final regulations require that a covered entity show that 
a  challenged qualification standard based on uncorrected vision is 
job-related and  consistent with business necessity. An individual challenging the 
legality of an  uncorrected vision standard need not be a person with a 
disability, but the  individual must have been adversely affected by the 
standard. The Appendix notes  that individuals who are screened out of a job 
because they cannot meet an  uncorrected vision standard will usually meet the “
regarded as” definition of  disability. [Section 1630.10(b) and corresponding 
Appendix section] 
29. Does the ADAAA change the definitions of “qualified,” “direct threat,”
  “reasonable accommodation,” and “undue hardship,” or does it change who 
has the  burden of proof in demonstrating any of these requirements?
No. Nearly all of the ADAAA’s changes only affect the definition of  “
disability.” None of the key ADA terms listed in this Question, or the burdens  
of proof applicable to each one, have changed. The only provision in the 
ADAAA  affecting the reasonable accommodation obligation is that a covered 
entity does  not have to provide one to an individual who only meets the “
regarded as”  definition of disability. 
30. Why do the regulations no longer refer to a “qualified individual with 
a  disability”?
Consistent with the ADAAA, the final regulations now refer to “individual  
with a disability” and “qualified individual” as separate terms. They also 
now  prohibit discrimination “on the basis of disability” rather than “
against a  qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of 
such  individual.” The changes to the regulations reflect changes made by the 
ADAAA  itself, which are intended to make the primary focus of an ADA 
inquiry whether  discrimination occurred, not whether an individual meets the 
definition of  “disability.” However, an individual must still establish that 
he or she is  qualified for the job in question. [Section 1630.4 and the 
Introduction to the  Appendix] 
31. Do any of the ADAAA’s changes affect workers’ compensation laws or  
Federal and State disability benefit programs?
No. The ADAAA and the final regulations specifically state that no changes  
alter the standards for determining eligibility for benefits under State  
workers’ compensation laws or under Federal and State disability benefit  
programs. [Section 1630.1(c)(3) and corresponding Appendix section] 
32. May a non-disabled individual bring an ADA claim of discrimination for  
being denied an employment opportunity or a reasonable accommodation 
because of  lack of a disability?
No. The ADA does not protect an individual who is denied an employment  
opportunity or a reasonable accommodation because she does not have a  
disability. [Section 1630.4(b) and corresponding Appendix section] 
33. Will the EEOC be updating all of the ADA-related publications on its  
website to be consistent with the final ADAAA regulations?
Yes. When EEOC updates a particular document, we will note this on our  
website and explain what changes were made to the document. To avoid  
misunderstanding, all of these documents currently contain notices about the  ADAAA 
indicating that some of the material in the documents may no longer  reflect 
the law. It should be noted that because the ADAAA focused almost  
exclusively on changing the definition of “disability,” content in these  documents 
unrelated to the definition of “disability” – including the meaning of  
qualified, essential functions, reasonable accommodation, and direct threat –  
remains unaffected by the ADAAA and the final regulations. Therefore,  
individuals can continue to rely on these parts of the documents as reflecting  
current law. 
For more information about the ADA, please visit our  website or call our 
toll-free number. 
EEOC website: _www.eeoc.gov_ (http://www.eeoc.gov/) 
800-669-4000 (Voice) and  800-669-6820 (TTY)
All calls are confidential. 
For more information about reasonable accommodations,  contact the Job 
Accommodation Network. JAN provides free, expert, and  confidential guidance on 
workplace accommodations. 
JAN website: _www.askjan.org_ (http://www.askjan.org/) 
800-526-7234 (Voice) and  877-781-9403 (TTY