Defn of disability to be expanded to episodic impairments

In the news today: House approves bill expanding protections for people with disabilities. The New York Times (9/18, A21, Pear) reports, "Congress gave final approval on Wednesday to a major civil rights bill, expanding protections for people with disabilities and overturning several recent Supreme Court decisions." The House of Representatives voice vote "clears the bill for President Bush," who indicated that he would sign it. The legislation "expands the definition of disability and makes it easier for workers to prove discrimination. It explicitly rejects the strict standards used by the Supreme Court to determine who is disabled." It also "declares that the court went wrong by 'eliminating protection for many individuals whom Congress intended to protect' under" the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Lawmakers claimed "that people with epilepsy, diabetes, cancer, multiple sclerosis, and other ailments had been improperly denied protection because their conditions could be controlled by medications or other measures." Therefore, "in deciding whether a person is disabled, the bill says, courts should not consider the effects of 'mitigating measures' like prescript ion drugs, hearing aids, and artificial limbs." Furthermore, "it says , 'an impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active.'"         The AP (9/18, Abrams) adds, "The bill directs the courts toward a more generous application of the ADA's definition of disability, making it clear that Congress intended the ADA's coverage to be broad and to cover anyone facing discrimination because of a disability." Echoing that sentiment, CQ (9/18, Wayne, Demirjian) quotes House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) as saying, "Tens of millions of Americans will enjoy even fuller rights -- the rights we intended for them when we passed the first ADA . ... Over the last 18 years the court has chipped away at that promise. We said we wanted broad coverage for people with disabilities and for people regarded as disabled."  

What does this mean oh wise law-smart person?

BTC, this legislation relates to freedom of access and non-discrimination in employment for people with recognized disabilities. It would mean that if you can perform the job with reasonable accommodations (eg., freedom to leave your work space and visit the bathroom when needed), you could not be denied the job or fired because of your disability.

A common misconception is that if you're covered under the ADA act, you have to be hired or can't be fired or the employer has to do whatever is necessary to enable you to do the job. A blind person, for instance, would not be able to get a job that required driving a car and then demand a driver to transport them (although if they could perform the job duties using public transportation, they would be protected.) It also doesn't protect people from being terminated because of excessive absences.

When you speak of applying, I think you're speaking of Social Security Disability. This is a completely separate process, which provides benefits to people whose disabilities prevent them from working. In order to initiate that process, contact your local Social Security office or go to http://www.ssa.gov/ and click on the disability link.