Given their expansive definition of disability, the amendments to the American with Disabilities Act are swelling the number of ADA lawsuits. But there are limits. The new definition was of no help to a creative but unsuccessful claim, as set out in a November 2011 opinion from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Fast-food style, the court laid out the facts in Wallner, et al. v. MHV Sonic Inc., et al: Some Sonic employees were subjected to several armed robberies at the restaurant. They complained in writing to management that they were afraid of yet another robbery. They allegedly were fired as a result. They sued under the ADA and various state law claims, claiming their employer regarded them as disabled. (Recall that terminating employees because the employer regards them ADA disabled is just as much a violation as firing them because they actually are ADA disabled.) No dice, ruled the court in granting the employer's motion for summary judgment. Why? Two reasons. First, there were no allegations that Sonic perceived the fear as linked to a mental or psychological disorder, which is required to assert a regarded-as claim. Rather, the allegations were tethered to a situation in which the employees were mired. The employees got the court's sympathy but no more. Second, even assuming their fear was a physical or mental impairment, the court noted that the amendments do not permit a regarded-as claim if the impairment is "transitory and minor." Here, the court reasoned that, while their fear was understandable, it was a transitory phenomenon, popping up only when they were working at the Sonic. The court tossed their ADA claim and sent their state law claims for negligent training and supervision back to state court (the suit had been removed to federal court). The ADA and its amendments involve complex and difficult legal issues. Like a tough law school exam, the amendments will challenge all employment lawyers.