The United States Supreme Court recently handed down three opinions narrowing the scope of protection afforded under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Supreme Court held that whether an individual is "disabled" within the meaning of the ADA is determined by taking into account medical or artificial aides available to minimize the effects of impairment (for example, high blood pressure medication or contact lenses). The Supreme Court also held that an employer's refusal to hire an individual because of a misperception about the impact of a disability upon the individual's ability to work is actionable only where the employer believed the individual unable to perform a broad class of jobs, not just a particular position.
ACTIONABLE DISABILITY UNDER THE ADA
Individuals with "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities" are disabled under the ADA. Major life activities include the individual's ability to care for him/herself, perform manual tasks, walk, see, hear, speak, breath, learn, or work. Also included within the ADA's protection are those with a record of disability and those "regarded as" being disabled.
In Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc., the Supreme Court considered whether extremely nearsighted twins who applied for jobs as airline pilots could sue under the ADA after their applications were rejected for failure to meet United's visual acuity requirement. The key issue was whether the twins could demonstrate that their nearsightedness constituted a substantially limiting visual impairment protected under the ADA even though they had 20/20 vision when wearing corrective lenses. The Supreme Court decided that the twins were not "disabled" within the meaning of the ADA because their eyesight when corrected did not substantially limit them in any major life activity. Nor did their use of corrective lenses cause any disabling side effect.
In Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc., the Supreme Court applied the same reasoning to find that a mechanic who was terminated because of his high blood pressure was not "disabled" under the ADA because he was able to function normally with medication. The employer required its mechanics to drive commercial motor vehicles, which in turn required compliance with health criteria imposed by the Department of Transportation ("DOT"). When UPS terminated the mechanic because his blood pressure exceeded DOT requirements, he complained that his termination violated the ADA. The Supreme Court rejected his claim because his high blood pressure, when medicated, did not substantially limit him in any major life activity and therefore he fell outside the ADA's protection.
In Albertsons, Inc. v. Kirkinburg the Supreme Court extended the rule even further to hold that self-correction of an impairment, in addition to artificial correction, must be taken into account when assessing whether an individual is disabled. The plaintiff truck driver in Kirkinburg was terminated when he failed to satisfy DOT vision standards because he could see out of only one eye (monocular vision). He argued his monocular vision constituted a per se disability. The Supreme Court rejected his argument, noting that he had developed compensatory skills that minimized the actual limitations he faced as a result of his visual impairment. While the Supreme Court acknowledged the medical literature suggested that most people with monocular vision would meet the definition of disability, it nonetheless dismissed the truck driver's claim because he failed to introduce evidence that the "extent of the limitation in terms of [his] own experience, as in a loss of depth perception and visual field, is substantial."
MISPERCEPTIONS REGARDING AN EMPLOYEE'S OR APPLICANT'S ABILITY TO WORK
In Sutton and Murphy the Supreme Court affirmed the ADA's prohibition against making employment decisions based upon a perception that an individual is disabled, even if the individual does not actually meet the ADA definition of disability. Specifically, the Supreme Court analyzed the issue of whether an employer violates the ADA by acting upon a misperception about an individual's ability to engage in the major life activity of work. The Supreme Court held that the employee must show that the employer regarded him or her as being ineligible for a broad class of jobs, not just ineligible for a single position. In both cases, the employers successfully argued that they considered the employees unsuitable only for a particular position, rather than a broad class of jobs. Accordingly, the Supreme Court concluded the employers did not violate the "regarded as disabled" provision of the ADA.
These cases provide significant new guidance to employers. Employees and applicants with readily correctable impairments will generally not be able to pursue ADA claims. Nevertheless, employers who act based upon a perception that an individual is disabled still run the risk of violating the ADA, particularly where they perceive an individual as being unable to perform a broad class of jobs.