Supreme Court limits coverage of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

• Author: Marksteiner, Peter R.
• Position: U.S. Supreme Court

In mid-July, the U.S. Supreme Court issued three opinions construing the Americans With Disabilities Act(1) (ADA) that narrow considerably the class of people eligible to pursue disability discrimination actions under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act.(2) The most far-reaching bright line rule established by the Court in these three cases is that the determination of whether a person has a disability shall be made with reference to the extent to which he or she overcomes the effects of a physical or mental impairment through the use of "mitigating measures," such as medication, assistive mechanical aids, or even the body's own means of compensating for physical or mental impairments. The decisions reverse the legal standard previously applied to disability discrimination cases by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Department of Justice (DOJ), and eight of the nine U.S. circuit courts of appeals to consider the issue.

Under the ADA, a person may establish a disability by making one or a combination of three separate showings. First, he or she may do so by demonstrating the presence of what the court referred to as an "actual" disability.(3) A person claiming ADA coverage under the "actual" disability definition of the act must show a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits the performance of a major life activity, such as seeing, walking, or standing.(4) Second, a person may do so by demonstrating a record of such an impairment.(5) Third, a person may do so by demonstrating that he or she is "regarded as" having such an impairment.(6) The Court's decisions construing the ADA shed much needed light on what a plaintiff must allege and prove to obtain the protection of the ADA's coverage under the first ("actual") and third ("regarded as") definitions of "disability."

The lead decision, to which the other decisions repeatedly refer, is Sutton v. United Air Lines, 119 S. Ct. 2139 (1999). In Sutton, twin sisters had applied for airline pilot jobs with United Airlines. Both sisters were commercial pilots with thousands of flying hours and employed by a regional commuter airline. Both sisters were severely nearsighted, with visual acuity of 20/200 or worse when uncorrected. However, with corrective lenses (glasses or contacts) their vision was perfect. Although they both met the Federal Aviation Administration's visual acuity standard, United declined to hire them because they failed to meet United's self-imposed standard requiring pilots to have uncorrected vision of 20/100 or better. The Suttons sued under the ADA, alleging they were disabled under the "actual" and "regarded as" definitions of disability. Without corrective lenses, they argued, they were substantially limited in the major life activity of seeing and were actually disabled. Additionally, they argued United regarded them as being substantially limited in the major life activity of working--specifically the major life activity of working as a "global airline pilot."

In Albertson's Inc., v. Kirkingburg, 119 S. Ct. 2162 (1999), Albertson's had hired Hallie Kirkingburg as a truck driver in August 1990. At the time Albertson's hired him, he had more than 10 years of truck driving experience, and performed well on a road test. Prior to starting work for Albertson's, a physical exam revealed that he suffered from amblyopia, which for the most part rendered him able to see out of only one eye. The doctor who discovered the condition nonetheless erroneously certified that he met the Department of Transportation's basic vision standard. Kirkingburg injured himself on the job in December 1991 and did not return to work for 11 months. Prior to returning, he underwent a company-required physical. This time the doctor conducting the examination correctly noted that Kirkingburg's vision did not meet basic DOT standards and told him he'd have to request a waiver under an experimental program DOT had implemented during Kirkingburg's medical absence. DOT granted Kirkingburg's waiver request in early 1993, but Albertson's refused to rehire him. Kirkingburg sued under the ADA, arguing he was disabled under the "actual" definition of disability insofar as his visual impairment substantially limited him in the major life activity of seeing.

The third case is Murphy v. UPS Inc, 119 S. Ct. 2133 (1999). UPS hired Vaughn Murphy as a mechanic in August 1994. Although Murphy had been diagnosed with severe high blood pressure when he was 10 years old, with medication he was not limited in any routine daily activities. Indeed, he had worked as a mechanic for more than 20 years when UPS hired him. The mechanic position into which Murphy was hired required employees to have a commercial vehicle certification from the DOT, and at the time UPS hired Murphy his blood pressure was outside DOT's qualifying limits. In October, after a medical supervisor noticed the oversight, UPS fired Murphy, believing that his blood pressure rendered him not certifiable under DOT standards. Murphy sued under the ADA, alleging he was disabled under the "actual" and "regarded as" definitions of disability.

The Supreme Court resolved all three cases in favor of the employers on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Specifically, all three plaintiffs failed, for various reasons spelled out by the Court, to allege that they were "disabled" within the meaning of the ADA according to either the "actual" or "regarded as" definitions of the term "disability." Factually, the cases are strikingly similar in two respects.

The first is obvious. Indeed, the first similarity served as the landmark issue--all of the plaintiffs had impairments which if unmitigated, either by medication, assistive technology, or the body's own ability to compensate, would result in substantial limitations in major life activities, but which when mitigated did not have such an impact.

The second similarity is more subtle but is, when considered in light of the findings upon which the ADA was based,(7) more helpful to understanding the macro impact of these three decisions. The plaintiffs in all three cases would appear to the average observer to be anything but disabled in spite of their impairments. They were all accomplished, and by most measures successful in their chosen professions. The Sutton sisters were regional commercial airline pilots. Murphy was a veteran mechanic with two decades of experience, and Kirkingburg had been driving trucks for over 10 years. Moreover, all three were still able, as of the date of the...