The ongoing debate about whether, how and how much to change the federal Americans With Disabilities Act has now moved on to the United States Senate.

Earlier this year, the House of Representatives voted to expand the ADA. The House bill seems to vaguely expand the current definition of disability – an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity – by stating that “substantially limits” means “materially restricts.” It also precludes employers from considering mitigating measures (e.g., drugs that control blood pressure) when deciding if an employee is disabled, although use of eyeglasses can be considered regarding alleged visual impairments.

The bill also attempts to exclude from the definition of disability minor and/or transitory impairments, e.g., the flu or a broken leg lasting less than six months. Sticking to more traditional ADA analysis on at least some points, the proposed Senate bill (S. 3406) defines “substantially limits” as an impairment that prevents or severely restricts an individual from doing activities that are of central importance. Otherwise, the Senate bill seems similar to the measure passed by the House.