Joanne R. Pompano
The ADA has been challenged in the courts numerous times since this civil rights act was passed by Congress in 1990. Some lower court decisions concerning the ADA have been appealed to the Supreme Court. According to some experts these decisions have weakened the ADA and threatened the rights and protections granted disabled individuals in the United States.
Several of the ADA cases brought before the Supreme Court dealt specifically with blind and visually impaired issues including:
1. E. Sutton v. United Airlines, 527 U.S. 471 (1999)
G. Albertson’s Inc. v. Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. 555 (1999).
These cases will be read by students to assist students in understanding the issues that are being debated and the rights that are at stake.
II. SYNOPSES OF THE CASES
OVERVIEW OF ISSUES ADDRESSED BY THE COURT IN ADA CASES
Sutton v. United Airlines, 527 U.S. 471 (1999).
Issues: In this lawsuit two job applicants with severe nearsightedness (myopia) challenged United Airlines’ minimum vision requirement for global pilots. In addition, this case considers the issue of whether individuals who uses corrective lenses and other measures to improve their vision can be considered disabled and therefore covered under the ADA.
In 1992, two sisters applied for jobs with United Airlines as commercial airline pilots. Both women met the basic conditions and experience requirements for these jobs. Both women are severely myopic (nearsightedness) and have acuity of 20/200 or worse in the right eye and 20/400 or worse in the left eye without correction. Thus without their glasses or contact lenses they would not be able to drive a car. With corrective lenses, however, their visual acuity is 20/20 or better.
During their interviews, they were informed that they did not meet the minimum vision requirements set by United Airlines which requires a visual acuity of 20/100 or better without correction
The women filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC0) and later filed a lawsuit in federal court against United Airlines. This lawsuit alleged that United Airlines discriminated against them on the basis of their disability and thus violated the ADA. In addition, they alleged that United Airlines discriminated against them because they regarded them as having a disability even though they are able to correct the problem with corrective lenses.
The federal court dismissed their complaints on the ground that the plaintiffs did not prove they had a disability protected by the ADA and thus there was no claim upon which relief could be granted. This judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. Sutton v. United Airlines, 130 F.3d 893 (10th Cir. 1997).
Both courts ruled that these individuals were not substantially limited in any major life activity because their vision was correctable. The courts also ruled that the plaintiffs did not prove their allegation that United Airlines regarded them as having an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity. However, the courts did find that United regarded them as unable to satisfy requirements for a particular job that of a global airline pilot.
The Supreme Court agreed to take this case to determine whether the Tenth Circuit’s ruling that a disability should take mitigating measures into account was “in tension with the decisions of other Courts of Appeals.” Sutton, 527 U.S. at 477. 21
Issues:
Whether monocular vision constitutes a disability under ADA. Also, there is the question of whether a DOT safety regulation can allow an employer to use visual acuity as a job qualification when the DOT regulation contains a waiver which would allow this standard to be waived.
Albertson’s Inc., a grocery store chain, hired Hallie Kirkingburg as a truck driver. Mr. Kirkingburg had more than ten years experience as a driver and he performed well on a road test given by Albertson’s transportation manager.
He was required to be examined by a doctor before he started working to see if he met federal standard for commercial truck drivers. The doctor failed to note that he had uncorrectable vision condition (amblyopia) that involves weakened vision in one eye. His left eye had a visual acuity of -20/200 which meant he is able to see clearly in one eye (monocular vision). The doctor certified erroneously that he met DOT basic vision standard which requires a basic vision requirement that is corrected for distance to at least 20/40.
Kirkingburg later had to take a leave of absence due to an injury on the job. Before he could return he was required to undergo a physical examination. At this exam the physician again assessed his vision and this time correctly reported that his eyesight did not meet basic DOT standards. He applied for a wavier as the DOT regulations allow but in the meantime was fired by Albertson’s for not meeting vision standard of DOT.
District court granted summary judgment for Albertson’s. They ruled the company reasonably conclude he was not qualified without accommodation
The Court of Appeal for Ninth Circuit court reversed the district court’s decision. The court held that Albertson’s could not use the DOT vision standard as the justification for is vision requirement and yet disregard the waiver program which was a legitimate part of the DOT program. Albertson’s argued that Kirkingburg did not have a disability within the mandate of the ADA. The Court of Appeals rejected this contention and concluded that Kirkingburg had presented evidence his vision differs significantly from the manner most people se.
In a unanimous ruling, the Court reversed the judgment of the Ninth Circuit The Court ruled that Kirkingburg was not “qualified” under ADA and, therefore, the Court did not have to resolve the other issue of whether he was an individual with a disability.22