Do people with a "correctable" condition have a disability covered under the ADA? For now, it depends, at least in part, on where you live.
The EEOC's interpretive guidance (which is the way the EEOC interprets its own guidelines and is not binding on a court of law) states that mitigating or corrective measures are not to be considered in evaluating whether a person has a disability. However, since that guidance is not binding, courts have interpreted this issue in different ways. This means that an employer with multi-state businesses may be subject to varying rules regarding its evaluation of employees with conditions which are controlled by corrective measures.
In Maine, the Federal District Court disagreed with the EEOC guidance and held that evaluation of a disability under the ADA was to be made taking into account any mitigating or corrective measures. However, this holding was reversed by the First Circuit Court of Appeals. In Arnold v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 136 F.3d 854 (1st. Cir. 1998), an applicant was hired conditioned on passing a pre-employment medical examination. During the examination the employee's diabetes was revealed. Although he controlled the diabetes with insulin, he was disqualified from driving a commercial vehicle by Department of Transportation regulations. Therefore, the employer refused to hire him. The employee sued, arguing that even though the diabetes was controlled, it was a disability under the ADA. The Federal District Court found in favor of the employer, holding that because the employee's diabetes was controlled by medication, he was not an individual with a disability and therefore did not fall within the ADA.
The First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision. It held that the intent of the ADA was to evaluate disability without regard to mitigating measures. Since the employee suffered from a disability recognized under the ADA, he was entitled to proceed with his claim of discrimination even if the condition was controlled by medication. He then had to meet his burden to show that he was otherwise qualified for the job with or without reasonable accommodation.
"Under such an expansive reading, the term 'disabled' would become a meaningless phrase, subverting the policies and purposes of the ADA and distorting the class the ADA was meant to protect."
- Sutton v. United Air Lines, 130 F.3d 893 (10th Cir. 1997)
Other courts have interpreted the issue differently, even where the same employer was involved. In Murphy v. United Parcel Service, (10th Cir.1997), the applicant suffered from hypertension controlled by medication. He was given an offer of employment with UPS, conditioned on a pre-employment physical. Following the physical, he was offered the position. Later, the employer discovered that his blood pressure exceeded that allowed by the Department of Transportation and he was terminated. He sued under the ADA.
The Tenth Circuit found that his ability to control the hypertension with medication demonstrated that he was not substantially limited as required by the ADA, and was therefore not an individual with a disability. Therefore, the court did not reach the issue of whether the employee was qualified for the job with or without reasonable accommodation.
Because of the split between these and other circuits, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear Murphy and two similar cases in late April 1998 to resolve the issue. The results will affect all businesses in Maine subject to the ADA. Look for an explanation of the Supreme Court's holding in our future issues.