미국 장애인차별금지법 (A Study on the ADA Amendment Act in U.S.)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국노동법학회
· 수록지 정보 : 노동법학 / 36호 / 289 ~ 340페이지
· 저자명 : 송강직

초록

In this paper, the author is going to introduce the ADA and the ADAAA to South Korea. As we know well, the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the definition of “disability” in ADA Sec.3(2) narrowly and strictly through many decisions. The conclusions concerning the definition of “disability” in the ADAAA are as follows.
The ADAAA has also the definition of “disability” like the ADA, but further defines three critical terms specifically, that is, “substantially limits”, “regarded as having such impairment” and “ major life activities”, and clarifies that the disability must be construed broadly.
Under the ADAAA, first, an impairment that sucstantially limits one major life activity need not limit other major life activities in order to be considered a disability under the ADA. It means that the ADAAA rejects the Supreme Court's decisions. The ADAAA also rejects the EECO's regulations, furthermore expresses the intent of Congress that the EEOC will revise its regulations that define the term of “substantially limits”.
Second, the ADAAA states that an individual meets the requirment of being “regarded as” having such an impairment if the individual establishes that one has been subjected to an action prohibited under because of an actual or perceived physical or mental impairment. The ADAA also here rejects the Supreme Court's decisions, and reinstates the Supreme Court's holding in School Board of Nassau Country v. Arline.
Third, the ADAAA defines the operation of major bodily functions, in addition to the list of major life activities under the ADA. This definitional change is intended to restore coverage for individuals who have been interpreted by the Supreme Court to not be disabled under the ADA.
Fourth, the ADAAA defines that the determination of whether a physical or mental impairment substantially limits a major life activity must be made without regard to the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures. Nevertheless, ordinary eyeglasses and contact lenses may be considered in determining whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity. It means also that the ADAAA rejects the Court's decision in Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc.
Finally, an essential job function, duty of reasonable accommodation, remedy system and LLEPA are also discussed in this paper.

영어초록

In this paper, the author is going to introduce the ADA and the ADAAA to South Korea. As we know well, the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the definition of “disability” in ADA Sec.3(2) narrowly and strictly through many decisions. The conclusions concerning the definition of “disability” in the ADAAA are as follows.
The ADAAA has also the definition of “disability” like the ADA, but further defines three critical terms specifically, that is, “substantially limits”, “regarded as having such impairment” and “ major life activities”, and clarifies that the disability must be construed broadly.
Under the ADAAA, first, an impairment that sucstantially limits one major life activity need not limit other major life activities in order to be considered a disability under the ADA. It means that the ADAAA rejects the Supreme Court's decisions. The ADAAA also rejects the EECO's regulations, furthermore expresses the intent of Congress that the EEOC will revise its regulations that define the term of “substantially limits”.
Second, the ADAAA states that an individual meets the requirment of being “regarded as” having such an impairment if the individual establishes that one has been subjected to an action prohibited under because of an actual or perceived physical or mental impairment. The ADAA also here rejects the Supreme Court's decisions, and reinstates the Supreme Court's holding in School Board of Nassau Country v. Arline.
Third, the ADAAA defines the operation of major bodily functions, in addition to the list of major life activities under the ADA. This definitional change is intended to restore coverage for individuals who have been interpreted by the Supreme Court to not be disabled under the ADA.
Fourth, the ADAAA defines that the determination of whether a physical or mental impairment substantially limits a major life activity must be made without regard to the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures. Nevertheless, ordinary eyeglasses and contact lenses may be considered in determining whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity. It means also that the ADAAA rejects the Court's decision in Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc.
Finally, an essential job function, duty of reasonable accommodation, remedy system and LLEPA are also discussed in this paper.

참고자료

· 없음