Jackson Heights, NY–Despite bipartisan support of a majority of members of the U.S. House of Representatives for passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act Restoration Act (ADARA), the Bush Administration’s Justice Department has come out against it.

In a recent letter to Congressman John Conyers, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, the Justice Department argues that “while vigorous enforcement of the ADA is one of the top priorities of the Civil Rights Division,” the ADARA goes too far in expanding the definition of disability. United Spinal Association President and CEO Paul J. Tobin stated, “we are outraged that the Justice Department opposes fixing a court interpretation of the ADA which has resulted in qualified workers with disabilities being denied jobs.”

The need for the ADA Restoration Act grew from the Sutton v. United Airlines Supreme Court case and subsequent lower court interpretations of the definition of disability in the ADA. This definition protects persons who have a substantial impairment; have a history of a substantial impairment; and, who are “regarded as” having a substantial impairment.

In Sutton, the Supreme Court found that United Airlines’ rule that pilots whose uncorrected vision is worse than 20/200 cannot fly was not discrimination on the basis of disability. Although with glasses the pilots’ vision was corrected to 20/20, the Court ruled that it was not discriminatory to deny them a job on the basis of this less than “substantial” impairment. Clearly, United Airlines regarded the pilots who were denied jobs as disabled but the Court ignored the ADA “regarded as” disability definition, creating a nightmare for subsequent litigants with such conditions as asthma, epilepsy, respiratory and circulatory problems, arthritis, mental illness, mental retardation, and multiple sclerosis (MS).

The Justice Department does support a change to the ADA to clarify that a disability must be evaluated without regard to mitigating measures, provided there is an exception for people who wear glasses. United Spinal Association, many other disability organizations, and more than 218 House members believe the ADARA should be adopted as is because any individual who is being discriminated against because of a disability—substantial or not—should have the ADA’s protection.