Ideological Dissonance, Disability Backlash, and the ADA Amendments Act

Cheryl L. Anderson, Southern Illinois University

Abstract

The ADA Amendments Act disappointed many disability advocates who argued “disability” should be determined solely upon a showing that an individual has a physical or mental impairment. This article argues that adopting an open-ended protected class would have exacerbated rather than eliminated judicial backlash against the ADA. The judiciary adopted an excessively narrow protected class to resolve the ideological dissonance between judges' belief that the right of reasonable accommodation is a special right and their desire to avoid granting “windfall protection” where there has been no systemic disadvantage. An open-ended protected class would lead courts to narrow the right of accommodation in the same excessive manner as they did the original protected class. The AAA allows courts to filter at least some marginal cases, creating less ideological dissonance and thus less likelihood of a backlash. At the same time, the AAA is broad enough ultimately to gain better acceptance of reasonable accommodation as an anti-discrimination principle.