BILL ANALYSIS C.S.H.B. 377 By: Maxey April 27, 1995 Committee Report (Substituted) BACKGROUND When the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act was passed in 1991, discrimination on the basis of perceived disability was included in the Act. No legislation at the state level has been passed to address this problem in Texas. PURPOSE The purpose of this bill is to add the definition of perceived disability to Texas law, and will bring the State into compliance with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act. RULEMAKING AUTHORITY It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer, department, agency, or institution. SECTION BY SECTION ANALYSIS SECTION 1. Amends Section 21.002(4), Labor Code, to define "disability" to mean, with respect to an individual, a mental or physical impairment that substantially limits at least one major life activity of that individual, a record of such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment. Except as provided by Section 21.0025, the term does not include: (A) a current condition of addiction to the use of alcohol, a drug, an illegal substance, or a federally controlled substance; or (B) a currently communicable disease or infection that constitutes a direct threat to the health or safety of other persons or that makes the affected person unable to perform the duties of the person's employment. SECTION 2. Amends Subchapter A, Chapter 21, Labor Code, by adding Section 21.0025 as follows: Sec. 21.0025. EFFECT OF REHABILITATION PROGRAM; EFFECT OF ERRONEOUS PERCEPTION. An individual is not disqualified from being disabled if the individual: (1) has successfully completed a drug or alcohol abuse rehabilitation program or has been successfully rehabilitated; (2) is participating in a supervised rehabilitation program; or (3) is erroneously regarded as engaging in that illegal use. SECTION 3. This section takes effect September 1, 1995. Makes complaints filed before and after this governed by the law that was in effect when the complaint was filed. SECTION 4. (a) This Act conforms certain provisions of the Labor Code regarding those laws to certain changes made by Chapter 276, Acts of the 73rd Legislature, Regular Session, 1993. (b) This Act prevails over another Act of the 74th Legislature, Regular Session, 1995, relating to nonsubstantive additions to and corrections in enacted codes. SECTION 5. Emergency Clause. COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL TO SUBSTITUTE The original bill defined "Disability" to mean, with respect to an individual, a mental or physical impairment that substantially limits at least one major life activity of that individual, a record of such on impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment. The original bill deleted from the definition of "Disability" so that a disability does not include a current condition of addiction to the use of alcohol, a drug, on illegal substance, or a federally controlled substance; or a currently communicable disease or infection, including acquired immune deficiency syndrome or infection with the human immunodeficiency virus, that constitutes a direct threat to the health or safety of other persons or that makes the affected person unable to perform the duties of the person's employment. The substitute adds and replaces to the definition of "Disability" except as provided by Section 21.0025, the term does not include a current condition of addiction to the use of alcohol, a drug, an illegal substance, or a federally controlled substance; or a currently communicable disease or infection a direct threat to the health or safety of other persons or that makes the affected person unable to perform the duties of the person's employment. The substitute also adds a section for effect of rehabilitation program which addresses specifications for an individual not to be disqualified from being disabled. SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE ACTION H.B 377 was consider by the committee in a public hearing in 18, 1995. The committee considered a complete substitute to H.B 377. Testifying on the bill was Frank Thompson, representing himself. Testifying in favor of the bill was Judith Sokolow, representing Advocacy, Inc.; and Nancy Epstein, representing the Disability Policy Consortium. Testifying against the bill was Christopher A. Knepp, representing the Texas Employment Law Council; Carolyn Galloway, representing the Texas Eagle Forum; and Ted B. Roberts, representing the Texas Association of Business & Chambers of Commerce. H.B. 377 was left pending. H.B. 377 was reconsidered by the committee in a formal meeting on April 24, 1995. The committee considered a second complete substitute for H.B. 377. The second substitute was adopted without objection. H.B. 377 was reported favorably as substituted, with the recommendation that it do pass and be printed, by a record vote of 7 ayes, 1 nays, o pnv, 1 absent.