I. INTRODUCTION The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the judicial expansion of the direct threat of harm to self or others defense has strengthened the employee's position under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by applying rational standards to this defense. If an employer has false assumptions about a potential employee's abilities because of his or her disability, then the employer should have the burden of demonstrating why the employee would pose a direct threat to himself or herself and others.II. THE AMERICAN WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) The purpose of the American with Disabilities Act is to help people with disabilities find their place in society so that they can use their abilities to function and contribute, without prejudice. In 2008, the ADA Amendments Act was passed to broaden the definition of disability and includes five titles. The first of these titles is Employment (Title I). Title I requires that “employers be required to provide reasonable accommodations to applicants and employees with disabilities and prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability in all aspects of employment.” Under this title, however, it allows an employer to assert that an individual's disability may cause a direct threat to themselves or others. The regulations issued by the EEOC implementing the ADA are specifically intended to "provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities and provide clear, strong, consistent, and enforceable standards that address discrimination." These regulations not only define “Disability” and what constitutes a “Qualified Individual with Disability”, but also establish qualification standards for testing and other selections… halfway through the document… support him and he would fall frequently They also stated that Bradley was "very large when using crutches, making him an obstacle to other people." never explained whether or not a wheelchair would pose a threat. Wal-Mart's expert witness admitted that Bradley would be more stable in a wheelchair and pose less of a threat than if he had crutches. After Wal-Mart attempted to prove a “direct threat” defense, the Eighth Circuit court found that Wal-Mart had still failed to prove that Bradley posed a direct threat to the safety of itself or others, and held the district court's grant of summary judgment was reversed. The court's opinion in this case followed the same reasoning as most courts that "direct threat" is an affirmative defense that the defendant employer must prove.