Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc.: the Role of Mitigating Measures in Determining Disabilities - Julia J. Hall

• Jurisdiction: United States,Federal
• Publication year: 2000
• Citation: Vol. 51 No. 2

Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc.: The Role of Mitigating Measures in Determining Disabilities

In Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc.,¹ the United States Supreme Court held that the determination of "disability" under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA")² requires a consideration of any mitigating or corrective measures.³ The Court further held that an individual is "regarded as" disabled under the ADA if a covered entity mistakenly believes that the individual's actual, yet nonlimiting, impairment substantially limits a major life activity.⁴ This Casenote focuses only on the issue of whether the determination of disability under the ADA should be made with reference to any mitigating measures for the impairment.

I. Factual Background

Karen Sutton and Kimberly Hinton, twin sisters suffering from severe myopia, applied for employment as commercial airline pilots with United Air Lines ("United"), a major commercial airline carrier. The sisters met United's various employment criteria such as age, education, experience, and FAA certification. After the sisters submitted their applications, United invited them to participate in interviews and flight simulator tests. However, when they arrived for the interviews and tests, they were told that there had been a mistake in inviting them to interview because they did not meet the airline's minimum vision requirement, which was 20/100 uncorrected visual acuity or better. Neither Sutton nor Hinton could meet this requirement because each sister had visual acuity of 20/200 or worse in her right eye and 20/400 or worse in her left eye; however, corrective lenses made each sister's eyesight 20/20 or better. Nevertheless, both Sutton's and Hinton's interviews were terminated, and United did not offer either sister a commercial pilot position.⁵

Sutton and Hinton then filed a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") on the basis of United's refusal to interview or hire them because of their uncorrected vision impairments.⁶ After they received their right-to-sue letter, they filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, alleging that United had violated the ADA by discriminating against them "on the basis of their disability, or because [United] regarded [Sutton and Hinton] as having a disability."⁷ In their complaint Sutton and Hinton specifically alleged that as a result of suffering from severe myopia, "they actually have a substantially limiting impairment or are regarded as having such an impairment. . . and are thus disabled under the Act."⁸

The district court dismissed the sisters' complaint because it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.⁹ First, plaintiffs were not actually and substantially limited in any major life activity because their vision impairments could be fully corrected, and thus they had not stated a claim that they were disabled within the meaning of the ADA.¹⁰ Second, Sutton and Hinton had not sufficiently alleged that United regarded them as having an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity because they only alleged that United regarded them as unable to satisfy the specific job requirements of global airline pilots.¹¹ Upon the sisters' appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision.¹² The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split among the courts of appeals.¹³ As to the role that mitigating measures should play in determining disability, the Supreme Court held that "disability" within the meaning of the ADA "is to be determined with reference to corrective measures."¹⁴ Thus, the Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals, which had affirmed the district court's dismissal of plaintiffs' claim that they are substantially limited in any major life activity by their severe myopia.¹⁵

II. Legal Background

The ADA provides that no covered employer "shall discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual in regard to job application procedures; the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees; employee compensation; job training; and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment."¹⁶ The ADA defines a " 'qualified individual with a disability" ' as "an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires."¹⁷ The term "disability" is defined by the ADA as: "(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; (B) a record of such an impairment; or (C) being regarded as having such an impairment."¹⁸

The definition of "disability" is part of the AD As generally applicable provisions, and Congress did not delegate the responsibilities of interpreting the term "disability" to any particular agency such as the EEOC or the Justice Department. Nevertheless, both agencies have promulgated regulations interpreting the definition of "disability" under the ADA. Most notably, the EEOC regulations set forth three necessary elements of a disability under the ADA: (1) "physical or mental impairment," (2) "substantially limits," and (3) "major life activities."¹⁹ Additionally, the EEOC issued an Interpretative Guidance along with these regulations to aid in their implementation. The guidelines in this document provide that "[t]he determination of whether an individual is substantially limited in a major life activity must be made on a case by case basis, without regard to mitigating measures such as medicines, or assistive or prosthetic devices."²⁰

In Sutton the Supreme Court identified five decisions of the federal circuit courts as being "in tension" with the Tenth Circuit's decision.²¹ In each of these five decisions, the circuit court held that disabilities should be determined without regard to any mitigating measures; however, each court placed a varying degree of importance on the statute's language, the EEOC regulations, and the ADA's legislative history in reaching its decision to disregard mitigating measures.²² Because the First Circuit's decision in Arnold v. United Parcel Service, Inc.²³ is representative of the logic these courts used to conclude that the determination of disability should disregard any mitigating or corrective measures, it will be discussed in detail as illustrative of the analysis adopted by a majority of circuit courts prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Sutton.

In Arnold the First Circuit held that plaintiff's diabetes, without regard to any treatment for it, is a disability within the meaning of the ADA.²⁴ Arnold met with representatives of United Parcel Service ("UPS") to discuss his application for a position as a mechanic. At that time the representatives assured Arnold that he could have the position. After Arnold accepted the job offer the next day, a UPS representative informed him that he would be required to pass a driving test, submit his fingerprints, complete more paperwork, and submit to a Department of Transportation ("DOT") physical. Arnold was informed at his physical that he could not obtain DOT certification because he was an insulin-dependent diabetic, and another UPS representative later informed Arnold that the company could not hire him as a mechanic, but offered him an alternate position.²⁵

Arnold brought suit against UPS, alleging that UPS violated the ADA in refusing to hire him because of his diabetes.²⁶ The district court granted summary judgment for UPS on the ground that Arnold failed to show that he had a disability within the meaning of the ADA.²⁷ The district court's decision turned in large part on the "ameliorative effects of [Arnold's] insulin medication."²⁸ The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed, concluding that Arnold's diabetes would place him under the ADA's protection "if he is disabled based on his underlying medical condition, without regard to whether some of his limitations are ameliorated through medication or other treatment."²⁹

In reversing the district court, the court of appeals relied on tools of statutory construction after it determined that the ADA's language was not clear with respect to the role that ameliorative measures should play in determining whether a disability falls within the protection of the ADA.³⁰ The court reached its decision by analyzing the legislative history of the ADA, but it also found persuasive authority in both the EEOC regulations and the decisions of other federal circuit courts.

First, the court considered the legislative history of the ADA and concluded that Congress intended for the determination of disability under the ADA to not include consideration of any mitigating or corrective measures.³¹ The court cited House and Senate committee reports that expressly stated that plaintiff's impairment "should be assessed without considering whether mitigating measures, such as auxiliary aids or reasonable accommodations, would result in a lessthan-substantial limitation."³² The court noted that in two different committee reports Congress directly addressed diabetes and the effect that medication might have upon it: "'[P]ersons with impairments, such as epilepsy or diabetes, which substantially limit a major life activity,' are considered to have an actual disability, 'even if the effects of the impairment are controlled by medication.' "³³ Thus, the legislative history revealed explicit congressional intentions to make the determination of whether a disability falls within the ADA independent of any consideration of mitigating measures to control the impairment.

Second, the court looked to the congressional objective to be served by the ADA and how the definition of "disability" fit into that objective.³⁴ The court observed that the overall objective of the ADA is ' "to...