Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) - New Supreme Court Decision (June 1999)

Common Sense Prevails as Supreme Court Acts to Keep Focus of ADA on Individual Assessment of Potential Disabilities

A Brief Review of the U.S. Supreme Court's Recent Decisions Limiting the Reach
of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

In three decisions issued June 22, 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court took a common-sense approach to reading the ADA and handed a major defeat to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). The EEOC had argued for an expansive reading of the ADA. The EEOC's interpretation of the ADA was so expansive that it would have included approximately 174 Million individuals - including anyone who wears glasses - as disabled.

Disability is to be Determined With Reference to Corrective Measures

In the first decision, Sutton v. United Airlines, the Court ruled that the ADA did not cover twin sisters with uncorrected eyesight of "20/200 or worse" who were able to correct their eyesight "with the use of corrective lenses . . . to 20/20 or better." The twin sisters, who were in every other respect qualified for the job of "global airline pilot," were denied an interview for that position with United Airlines because of the airline's minimum vision requirement of "uncorrected visual acuity of 20/100 or better."

The Court resolved a much-disputed issue under the ADA: Whether self-accommodations should be considered in determining the definition of a disability under the ADA. In the 7:2 decision, the Court stated: "The use or nonuse of a corrective device does not determine whether an individual is disabled; that determination depends on whether the limitations an individual with an impairment actually faces are in fact substantially limiting."

The Court's Analysis Focused on the ADA, Itself

The Court focused on a direct interpretation of the statute itself. The ADA provides coverage for individuals with a disability as well as those regarded as having a disability.

What is a "Disability" Under the ADA?

In determining whether an individual is disabled under the ADA, the text of the ADA defines a "disability" as "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities" of an individual. The Court stated that this language is "properly read as requiring that a person be presently -- not potentially or hypothetically -- substantially limited in order to demonstrate a disability. A 'disability' exists only where an impairment 'substantially limits' a major life activity, not where it 'might,' 'could,' or 'would' be substantially limiting if mitigating measures were not taken."

The Court also noted that the definition of a "disability" found in the Act, requires that disabilities be evaluated "with respect to an individual." Thus, there are no per se disabilities under the ADA. The Court had previously held this last year in Bragdon where it declined to consider whether HIV infection is a per se disability under the ADA.

Furthermore, findings enacted as part of the ADA require the conclusion that Congress did not intend to bring under the ADA's protection all those whose uncorrected conditions amount to disabilities. The Court reached this conclusion based on the ADA's recitation that "some 43,000,000 Americans have one or more physical or mental disability." Reviewing the source of that estimate, the Court concluded that this number would be far larger under the EEOC's broader definition of "disability." "Had Congress intended to include all persons with corrected physical limitations . . . under the Act . . . it would have cited a much higher number."

Because the Court found support for this common sense conclusion in the Act itself, there was no need to consider the legislative history of the ADA.

Why Weren't They "Regarded As" Disabled?

Having dispensed with the argument that the twins were not disabled because their vision was correctable to 20/20, the Court went on to find that they were not "regarded as" disabled either. In general a "regarded as" claim arises when an employer mistakenly believes that an individual has a substantially limiting impairment. Here, the EEOC's own regulations were found to be reasonable. The regulations state that "substantially limits" means significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs as compared to the average person having similar training, skills and abilities. The Court further cited to the EEOC's own regulations which contain the very example found in this case! "[A]n individual who cannot be a commercial airline pilot because of a minor vision impairment, but who can be a commercial airline co-pilot or a pilot for a courier service, would not be substantially limited in the major life activity of working." 29 CFR pt. 1630.

Employers are Not Required to Justify Application of the Government's Own Safety Regulations

Having established that mitigating measures must be taken into account when judging whether an individual has a disability, the Court continued to address a number of related issues in the other two ADA-related decisions issued on June 22.

In Albertsons Inc. v. Kirkingburg, the Court found that the employer was justified in relying upon a federal safety regulation for commercial drivers as a minimum job requirement without allowing the individual to apply for a waiver from the requirement. This is important, because the EEOC wanted the employer to justify its reliance on the DOT regulation by applying the "direct threat" criterion. These criterion are highly specific and detailed. The Court stated that it was inconceivable that Congress had intended to place the employer in the position of being forced to justify application of the government's own safety regulations. Such a position would have effectively left employers with the choice between either violating the ADA or the DOT's regulations.

An Employee Is Not Regarded As Disabled When His Physical Impairment Precludes Certification for A Particular Job

In Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc., found that an employee is not "regarded as" disabled simply because his physical impairment prevents him from meeting the licensing requirements of one particular job.

Conclusion

The future effect of the Court's decisions is already being widely debated. However, we at Wessels Pautsch & Sherman P.C. believe that the primary impact for employers and employees with disabilities alike should be to refocus ADA issues on the assessment of the individual's ability to perform the essential functions of the job. This is what the ADA was all about in the first place.