April 20, 2014

Mixed Motive Allegation Not Enough To Sustain “Regarded as” ADAAA Case

When the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act (ADAAA) became effective in 2009, it was clear proving a “disability” was going to be much easier for plaintiffs than it had been in the past.  Still, interpretive guidance on other aspects on the amended act – through regulation and court decisions – has been much slower to develop.  Although not controlling outside its jurisdiction, the South District of Indiana, in Nayak v. St. Vincent Hospital, recently shed light on the “regarded as” method of proving disability determination. The case can be found here.

Under the ADAAA, an employer may not discriminate against an individual regarded as having a disability that is not minor and transitory in nature.  The only relevant change in the language of the ADA and the ADAAA regarding the general prohibition against discrimination is that the ADAAA prohibits discrimination “on the basis of” a disability as opposed to “because of” a disability, as the ADA prohibited.  The South District of Indiana found that this “small change in the text of the ADAAA is not significant enough to transform the ADAAA into a mixed-motive statute.”  Thus, under the “regarded as” prong, plaintiffs must still plead and prove that their perceived disability was the “but for” cause of the adverse employment action.  Unlike Title VII discrimination cases, proof of a mixed motive will not suffice.

With disability claims on the rise – and showing no signs of slowing – court guidance on the technical aspects and evidentiary burdens under the ADAAA is extremely important because it affects how employers should handle employees with potential disabilities.  While most decisions have been auguring in favor of employees, perhaps this case signals that the mixed motive strategy will have to remain on the shelf under the ADAAA.


About the Author

R. Holtzman Hedrick, Labor and Employment, Barnes Thornburg, Law firm

Holt Hedrick is an associate in the Indianapolis office of Barnes & Thornburg, where he is a member of the firm's Labor & Employment Law Department. Mr. Hedrick's practice focuses on a wide range of issues within the scope of labor and employment law, including discrimination suits, trade secrets, restrictive covenants, and employer consultations. Mr. Hedrick also has extensive experience as a commercial litigator, including defending companies against class actions, mass torts, federal privacy statutory claims, and breach of contract/warranty claims. Mr. Hedrick practices...


Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is  intended to be  a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.