United States: Supreme Court Rejects Expanded Definition Of Disability Under The ADA

June 1999

In a series of opinions exploring the parameters of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 22, 1999, that the use of corrective or mitigating measures should be considered in determining whether an individual is disabled under the ADA. Thus, for example, a truck driver whose high blood pressure was controlled through medication was held not to be disabled, nor regarded as disabled, under the ADA. The decisions also reaffirm the importance of an employer's individualized assessment of an applicant or employee seeking protection under the ADA.

Under the ADA, a disability is a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. Being regarded as having such an impairment also falls within the definition of disability. The three ADA cases decided by the Supreme Court involved disability claims by individuals who were able to function normally with the use of corrective devices, but who claimed to be substantially limited, or regarded as substantially limited, when viewed without regard to those devices. The EEOC issued interpretive guidance on the ADA, adopted by several federal appeals courts, in which it took the position that use of corrective measures should not be considered when determining whether an individual is substantially limited.

Although decided separately, the cases involved overlapping issues. For example, in the lead case, Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., No. 97-1943, the plaintiffs were twin sisters with severe myopia causing visual acuity of 20/200 or worse without corrective lenses who sought employment as commercial airline pilots with United. The sisters had 20/20 vision with corrective lenses, but their applications were denied because they did not meet United's minimum vision requirement for pilots of uncorrected visual acuity of 20/100 or better. The other two cases involved individuals in jobs requiring that they meet Department of Transportation ("DOT") standards for drivers of commercial vehicles who were terminated when their employers learned that they could not meet those standards.

In Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc., No. 97-1992, a UPS mechanic who was required to drive commercial vehicles was fired when UPS learned that he had high blood pressure and that he had been hired erroneously in violation of DOT requirements for commercial drivers. Upon discovery of the error and retesting, the mechanic still exceeded DOT requirements relating to high blood pressure, although he admitted that, with medication, he could function normally and that none of his activities were significantly restricted. In Albertsons, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, No. 98-591, a truck driver also erroneously hired despite failing to meet DOT standards was terminated when his employer learned that he could not meet DOT vision requirements of corrected distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 in each eye and distant binocular vision of at least 20/40. The driver suffered an uncorrectable condition that left him with 20/200 vision in one eye and, in effect, monocular vision. Albertsons fired the driver based on the DOT requirement and despite the driver's receipt of a waiver obtained under an experimental governmental program which was based on the driver's previous good driving record. (The text of each opinion is available at http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct, which is also available through links on the Morgan Lewis website at http://www.mlb.com by selecting Library, General Legal Resources.)

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the employer in each case. In so doing, it flatly rejected the EEOC's position that an individual's disabled status should be evaluated in the uncorrected or unmitigated state as an "impermissible interpretation of the ADA." The Court found that the ADA as a whole required consideration of the effects of corrective measures, both positive and negative, in judging whether the person is substantially limited in a major life activity.

The Court based its conclusion on three provisions of the ADA. First, the ADA requires that the impairment "substantially limits" a major life activity, contemplating the present condition of the individual, not the potential or hypothetical state of the uncorrected condition. A person whose impairment is corrected, such as through medication, is not presently substantially limited in a major life activity. Second, the ADA requires disabilities to be evaluated on an individualized basis. An individual who uses mitigating devices could not be evaluated in the unmitigated condition without speculation and generalizations. Such an evaluation would not be based on the person's actual condition. Third, Congress stated in the ADA its intent to protect the 43 million Americans with disabilities, a figure which undoubtedly would have been three or four times higher had Congress intended to include those with impairments which are largely corrected by medication or other devices, according to the Court.

Based on this reasoning, the Supreme Court concluded that the pilot applicants in Sutton were not disabled since with eyeglasses or contact lenses they could function identically to individuals without similar impairments. It also held that the mechanic in Murphy was not disabled since he could function normally and was not restricted in any activities when his high blood pressure was controlled by medication. In addition, in Albertsons, the Court found that the truck driver with monocular vision was not disabled even though his vision was not correctable through artificial devices. Rather, the Court noted, the driver was able to compensate subconsciously for his impairment through his body's own coping systems. Therefore, he was not substantially limited in a major life activity. The mere fact that the driver performed the major life activity of seeing differently than most people since he could only see out of one eye did not constitute a substantial limitation to the driver, according to the Supreme Court. In each of the three cases, the Supreme Court emphasized that the determinations of whether an individual met the definition of disability under the ADA were made on a case-by-case basis.

The Supreme Court's opinions also may limit the ability of individuals whose impairments are corrected from raising claims under the "regarded as" prong of the ADA's definition of disability. The Supreme Court rejected the alternative claims by the plaintiffs in Sutton and Murphy that they were disabled because their employers "regarded" them as having impairments that substantially limit them in the major life activity of working due to their conditions and the fact that they used corrective measures. Accepting with some skepticism, but not ruling on, the conclusion in EEOC regulations that "working" is a major life activity, the Court found that a substantial impairment on working requires a showing by the plaintiffs that they are unable to work in a broad class of jobs. The Court held that United and UPS may have regarded the pilots and the mechanic, respectively, as unable to perform the particular work in question because they were unable to meet a particular requirement, but that neither employer regarded the plaintiffs as substantially impaired in their ability to perform a wide range of jobs. Moreover, the Court stated that the ADA allows employers to prefer some physical characteristics, such as a vision requirement, height or singing voice, over others as long as the characteristic does not rise to the level of a substantial limitation of a major life activity. It does not follow from the existence of or adherence to such a requirement that the employer regards one who does not meet the requirement as substantially limited.

In short, the Supreme Court's decisions may limit the number of individuals attempting to assert claims under the ADA. While these decisions may exclude certain individuals such as those with high blood pressure, diabetes or vision impairments from ADA coverage, the Court's emphasis on individual, case-by-case assessment of the employee's actual condition and limitations necessitates a close examination by the employer of all of the relevant ADA definitions for each potentially covered applicant or employee. If you have any questions about the opinions discussed in this White Paper or ADA definitions as they may apply to your applicants or employees, please contact the attorneys identified below or any other attorney in the Labor and Employment Law Section of the firm.

Jane Howard-Martin

Christopher K. Ramsey

This White paper is published to inform clients and friends of Morgan Lewis and should not be construed as providing legal advice on any specific matter.