From the CRS summary of S. 3406, passed by the Senate on September 11, 2008: “ADA Amendments Act of 2008 – (Sec. 4) Amends the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) to redefine the term “disability,” including by defining “major life activities” and “being regarded as having such an impairment.”

Sets forth rules of construction regarding the definition of “disability,” including that: (1) such term shall be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals under the Act; (2) an impairment that substantially limits one major life activity need not limit other major life activities in order to be a disability; (3) an impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active; and (4) the determination of whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity shall be made without regard to the ameliorative effects of specified mitigating measures.

(Sec. 5) Prohibits employment discrimination against a qualified individual on the basis of disability. (Current law prohibits employment discrimination against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability.)…”

House Committee on Education and Labor: “The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 was intended to “provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.” Just as other civil rights laws prohibit entities from basing decisions on characteristics like race or sex, Congress wanted the ADA to stop employers from making decisions based on disability. Unfortunately, four U.S. Supreme Court decisions have narrowed the definition of disability so much that people with serious conditions such as epilepsy, muscular dystrophy, cancer, diabetes, and cerebral palsy have been determined to not meet the definition of disability under the ADA. The result: In 2004, plaintiffs lost 97% of ADA employment discrimination claims that went to trial, often due to the interpretation of definition of disability. People who are not hired or are fired because an employer mistakenly believes they cannot perform the job – or because the employer does not want “people like that” in the workplace – have been denied protection from employment discrimination due to these court decisions. This was not the intent of the ADA.”