 |
Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner LLP
The
United States Supreme Court recently issued three opinions
interpreting the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
These three opinions held that corrective measures should
be considered when determining whether a person is disabled
within the meaning of the ADA. The opinions also held
that the determination of whether a person is disabled requires
an individualized analysis.
In Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc., 1999 WL 407488
(U.S.), the plaintiffs were myopic twin sisters (with uncorrected
vision of 20/200) denied interviews for jobs as commercial
airline pilots. United has a policy that requires
commercial airline pilots to have uncorrected vision of
20/100 or better. This policy was the basis for denying
the sisters' commercial pilot interviews. The sisters
claimed that by denying them interviews, United had discriminated
against them in violation of the ADA. To make an ADA
claim, a plaintiff must first show she is disabled.
The Court held that to demonstrate a disability a plaintiff
must show "she is presently --- not potentially or
hypothetically --- substantially limited in [one or more
major life activities]." Thus, to determine whether
a plaintiff is disabled, the Supreme Court held that a trial
court should look at an individual's condition after,
rather than before, any corrective measures are undertaken.
In this case, because the sisters had corrected vision of
20/20, they were deemed not disabled within the meaning
of the ADA.
Moreover, the Court held that in defining "substantially
limited in the major life activity of working" (a criterion
often used in defining disability) a trial court should
look at whether the individual's condition disqualifies
him or her from a broad range or class of jobs. In
this case, the sisters were not substantially limited in
one or more major life activities simply because their vision
disqualified them from working as commercial airline pilots.
In the second opinion, Murphy v. United Parcel Service,
1999 WL 407472 (U.S.), the plaintiff (Murphy) was fired
from his job as a United Parcel Service (UPS) mechanic.
As a mechanic, Murphy was occasionally required to drive
a commercial motor vehicle. The Department of Transportation
specifies a maximum blood-pressure level in order to qualify
for a commercial truck driver's license. Because Murphy's
blood pressure was above the maximum level, UPS terminated
his employment. Murphy filed an action claiming that
UPS had discriminated against him in violation of the ADA.
The Court affirmed the dismissal of Murphy's claim.
Referring to Sutton, the Court held that the question
of Murphy's disability depended on his condition after he
employed corrective measures (medication). The Court
then noted the many jobs Murphy had held and could potentially
hold. This demonstrated that Murphy was not substantially
limited by his high blood pressure in the major life activity
of working. The mere fact that he might be disqualified
from being a mechanic for commercial vehicles did not mean
he was substantially limited in his ability to work in general.
In addition, the fact that Murphy was regarded as unable
to perform a particular job (rather than a broad class of
jobs) precluded him from prevailing on a claim of discrimination
based upon a perceived disability.
In the third opinion, Albertsons Inc. v. Kirkingburg,
1999 WL 407456 (U.S.), the plaintiff (Kirkingburg) was fired
from his job as a truck driver because he did not meet the
Department of Transportation's vision standards (due to
monocularity). Kirkingburg, after he was fired, went
to the Department of Transportation and received a waiver
exempting him from the vision standards. With waiver
in hand, Kirkingburg sought unsuccessfully to be rehired.
Kirkingburg then claimed that Albertsons had unlawfully
discriminated against him. The Court held that to
state a claim under the ADA, Kirkingburg had to show that
his impairment substantially limited him in a major life
activity. In determining whether Kirkingburg was a
disabled individual, the court reiterated the holding of
Sutton that mitigating measures had to be taken into
account -- including whether Kirkingburg's own physical system
had compensated for his monocularity. In addition,
the Court made clear that the existence of a disability
must be determined on an individualized case-by-case basis,
i.e., by looking at the impact of a disability on
"such individual."
The Impact On Employers
From an employer's perspective, these three opinions
are helpful. First, to state an ADA claim, potential
plaintiffs will have to show their impairment, after the
employment of mitigating measures, still substantially limits
them in a major life activity. Second, they will have
to make this showing on an individualized basis. While
there are still tens of millions of people with true disabilities
in the population, these opinions provide a reasonable limitation
on the definition of the term "disability."
There are, however, some questions raised by these three
opinions. First, do potential plaintiffs have a duty
to mitigate their impairments? Second, if they choose
not to mitigate are they disabled under the ADA? For
example, is a person who refuses to wear glasses disabled?
These questions will likely be raised and resolved in future
ADA litigation.
In sum, the narrow reading of the ADA given by the Court
in this last term indicates a reluctance to expand the number
of people covered under the ADA. Nonetheless, this
remains an area rife with pitfalls and the potential for
missteps, as disability issues often interrelate with leave
of absence and workers compensation issues.
If you would like to receive legal reports and updates
more quickly, by e-mail, click
here and fill out the mailing list
form.
For more information about the issues covered in this report, please contact Linda S. Husar in our Los Angeles office at 213-576-8017 or at lshusar@thelen.com or contact your Thelen attorney. For more information about Thelen's Construction and Government Contracts Department, click here.
©1999 Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner LLP
|
