{"id":37517,"date":"2008-03-26T16:35:41","date_gmt":"2008-03-26T21:35:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/content.findlaw-admin.com\/ability-legal\/uncategorized\/recent-ada-decisions.html"},"modified":"2008-03-26T16:35:41","modified_gmt":"2008-03-26T21:35:41","slug":"recent-ada-decisions","status":"publish","type":"corporate","link":"https:\/\/corporate.findlaw.com\/litigation-disputes\/recent-ada-decisions.html","title":{"rendered":"Recent ADA Decisions"},"content":{"rendered":"<section class=\"fl-gutenberg-byline\">\n    <div class=\"fl-gutenberg-byline-content\">\n                    <p><em>This article was edited and reviewed by <a href=\"https:\/\/www.findlaw.com\/company\/our-team.html\" rel=\"noopener\">FindLaw Attorney Writers<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n                | Last reviewed\n        <time>\n                            May 04, 2026\n                    <\/time>\n    <\/div>\n\n    \n    <div class=\"fl-gutenberg-byline-toggle fl-gutenberg-byline-legally-reviewed\">\n        <h2>\n            <button tabindex=\"0\" aria-expanded=\"false\">\n                <i class=\"fl-gutenberg-byline-icon\"><\/i>\n                Legally Reviewed\n            <\/button>\n        <\/h2>\n\n        <div class=\"fl-gutenberg-byline-toggle-content\">\n            <p><em>This article has been written and reviewed for legal accuracy, clarity, and style by <a href=\"https:\/\/www.findlaw.com\/company\/our-team.html\" rel=\"noopener\">FindLaw\u2019s team of legal writers and attorneys<\/a> and in accordance with <a href=\"https:\/\/www.findlaw.com\/company\/company-history\/editorial-policy.html\" rel=\"noopener\">our editorial standards<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n        <\/div>\n    <\/div>\n\n    <div class=\"fl-gutenberg-byline-toggle fl-gutenberg-byline-fast-checked\">\n        <h2>\n            <button tabindex=\"0\" aria-expanded=\"false\">\n                <i class=\"fl-gutenberg-byline-icon\"><\/i>\n                Fact-Checked\n            <\/button>\n        <\/h2>\n\n        <div class=\"fl-gutenberg-byline-toggle-content\">\n            <p><em>The last updated date refers to the last time this article was reviewed by FindLaw or one of our <a href=\"https:\/\/www.findlaw.com\/company\/our-team\/contributing-authors.html\" rel=\"noopener\">contributing authors<\/a>. We make every effort to keep our articles updated. For information regarding a specific legal issue affecting you, please <a href=\"https:\/\/lawyers.findlaw.com\/?fli=bylinelink\" rel=\"noopener\">contact an attorney in your area<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n        <\/div>\n    <\/div>\n<\/section>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"rxbodyfield\" xmlns:o=\"urn:www.microsoft.com\/office\" xmlns:st1=\"urn:www.microsoft.com\/smarttags\" xmlns:w=\"urn:www.microsoft.com\/word\" xmlns:x=\"urn:www.microsoft.com\/excel\"><p>In three significant employment decisions released on June 22, 1999, the United States Supreme Court reviewed and refined the definition of &quot;disability&quot; under the Americans with Disabilities Act. 42 U.S.C. &#167; 12102. The Court declined to expand the ADA from persons whose impairments &quot;substantially limit&quot; a major life activity to employees whose conditions are improved by medication or corrective devices such as eyeglasses.<\/p><p>In Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., [1999 WL 407488 (U.S.)], the Court held that mitigating measures must be taken into account in judging whether an individual has a disability. The petitioners were severely myopic twin sisters who were rejected by United Air Lines for employment as commercial airline pilots because they failed to meet United&#39;s minimum requirement for uncorrected vision of 20\/100 or better. The sisters&#39; uncorrected vision was 20\/200 or worse, but with correction, it was 20\/20. The Court found the sisters were not disabled under the ADA definition, because a disability exists only when it &quot;&#39;substantially limits&#39; a major life activity, not where it &#39;might,&#39; &#39;could,&#39; or &#39;would&#39; be substantially limiting if corrective measures were not taken.&quot;<\/p><p>In Albertson&#39;s, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, [1999 WL 407456 (U.S.)], Albertson&#39;s fired Kirkingburg for failing to meet Department of Transportation vision standards for commercial truckdrivers. The DOT basic vision standards require corrected visual acuity of at least 20\/40 in each eye, but Kirkingburg has an uncorrectable condition that leaves him with 20\/200 vision in his left eye. The Court held that an employer who requires as a job qualification that an employee must meet an otherwise applicable federal safety regulation does not have to justify enforcing the regulation as a business necessity under the ADA, even though the standard may be waived in an individual case. In addition, the Court held that Kirkingburg failed to prove that he had a disability in his individual case.<\/p><p>In Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc., [1999 WL 407472 (U.S.)] Murphy was fired from his job as a UPS mechanic, a position that required him to drive commercial vehicles, because UPS believed Murphy&#39;s high blood pressure violated DOT safety requirements. The DOT requirements for operating commercial vehicles included having &quot;no current clinical diagnosis of high blood pressure likely to interfere with his\/her ability to operate a commercial vehicle safely.&quot; 49 CFR &#167; 391.41(b)(6). The Court held that Murphy was not &quot;regarded&quot; as being disabled under the ADA because at most, he was regarded as unable to perform the job of mechanic only when that job requires driving a commercial vehicle. He was not regarded as unable to perform a general class of jobs, and was generally employable as a mechanic.<\/p><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In three significant employment decisions released on June 22, 1999, the United States Supreme Court reviewed and refined the definition of &#8220;disability&#8221; under the Americans with Disabilities Act. 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 12102. The Court declined to expand the &#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_stopmodifiedupdate":true,"_modified_date":"","_cloudinary_featured_overwrite":false},"corporate_categories":[6522,6526,6520],"class_list":["post-37517","corporate","type-corporate","status-publish","hentry","corporate_categories-litigation-disputes__civil-litigation","corporate_categories-litigation-disputes__civil-litigation__civil-rights","corporate_categories-litigation-disputes"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/corporate.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/corporate\/37517","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/corporate.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/corporate"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/corporate.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/corporate"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/corporate.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=37517"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"corporate_categories","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/corporate.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/corporate_categories?post=37517"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}