On June 22, 1999, the United States Supreme Court released three important decisions of special interest to employers. The Court announced that the determination of whether an individual is disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) should be made with reference to measures that mitigate the individual's impairment. These measures may be artificial (like medicines or eyeglasses) or natural (as through the body's own ability to compensate for the impairment). The Court ruled that the guidelines of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on the subject are wrong. It is not yet clear how far this determination will reach and to what conditions it will be applied, but for now, these decisions provide at least a little more guidance for employers subject to the ADA.
Cases on Point
Sutton v. United Air Lines, followed by Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc. and Albertsons v. Kirkingburg, serve to clarify the definition of "disability" and, thus, make it easier for employers to follow the ADA. Courts of appeal around the country were divided on whether corrective or mitigating measures should be considered in the determination of disabilities. Our own Fifth Circuit has stated that some impairments should be evaluated in their uncorrected state. See Washington v. HCA Health Servs. Of Texas, Inc., 152 F. 3d 464 (5th Cir. 1998). The Supreme Court settled the question, and ruled that the EEOC's guidelines - requiring that the decision be made without regard to mitigating measures - were an "impermissible interpretation of the ADA." These decisions should provide clearer guidance for employers and should serve to protect those individuals who have actual disabilities, but who can and want to work.
In Sutton, twin sisters with severe myopia were denied positions as airplane pilots by the defendant, United Air Lines, because they did not meet the company's minimum vision requirement of uncorrected visual acuity of 20/100 or better. With corrective measures, such as glasses or contacts, both functioned identically to individuals without impairment. The sisters sued under the ADA alleging that due to their severe myopia, they have, or are regarded as having, a substantially limiting impairment. The Supreme Court held that the effects, both positive and negative, of corrective measures must be taken into account when judging whether a person is "substantially limited" in a major life activity and, thus, "disabled" under the act.
EEOC and the ADA
The Court explained that the EEOC guidelines conflict with the plain meaning of the ADA. The impairment must "substantially limit" a major life activity. This means presently, "not potentially or hypothetically" substantially limited. In addition, the definition of disability must be made "with respect to an individual," that is, on a case-by-case basis. Finally, the Court interpreted congressional findings enacted as part of the ADA as indicating that those whose impairments are largely corrected by medication or other devices are not "disabled" within the meaning of the ADA. Accordingly, "disability" is to be determined with reference to corrective measures.
In Murphy, a mechanic who had to drive commercial vehicles as part of his job was fired when it was discovered that his blood pressure exceeded Department of Transportation (DOT) requirements. He sued under the ADA. The Court cited its Sutton opinion, and again stated that mitigating measures must be considered. The Tenth Circuit had ruled that, when medicated, the mechanic's high blood pressure did not substantially limit him in any major life activity. Unfortunately, the question of whether he is disabled because of limitations which persist after taking medication or through negative side effects of medication was not before the Court.
The Kirkingburg case concerned a truck driver with amblyopia, an uncorrectable vision condition that did not allow him to meet DOT vision standards. Albertsons fired the driver and refused to rehire him after he received a waiver from the DOT. The Ninth Circuit had ruled that the driver established a disability under the ADA, and that if Albertsons wanted to set a vision standard different from the DOT's, it had to justify its independent standard, which it could not do.
The Supreme Court reversed, finding that in accordance with Sutton, mitigating measures must be taken into account. A monocular individual has the ability to compensate for this impairment and, in this case, the truck driver's brain had subconsciously done so. The Court explained that mitigating measures are to be taken into account when determining whether an individual has a "disability," whether these measures are taken with artificial aids, like medications and devices, or through the body's own systems.
Conclusion
While other issues were considered in each case, these three decisions of the Supreme Court, with Sutton in the forefront, collectively establish that when determining whether an individual has a "disability" within the meaning of the ADA, mitigating and/or corrective measures, aids, or natural compensations must be considered. Again, it is not yet known if and how this will apply to every condition. However, it is at least an announcement by the highest court in the land that the EEOC interpretation of the ADA was incorrect. This had been suspected and argued by employers across the country, and now the Supreme Court has affirmed that position.