"THE ADA DOES NOT APPLY TO THOSE WHO WEAR GLASSES"
by
Charles M. Finkel, Esq.
Last week I was riding in a van to the Little Rock, Arkansas airport with two young commuter pilots. Being inquisitive, as well as interested, I joined in their conversation, advising them I was an aviation attorney. Noticing one of the young men was wearing fairly thick glasses, I inquired whether he had heard of the recent United States Supreme Court ruling in Sutton v United Airlines. I was surprised when he said "No", since I would have thought that all myopic pilots would be interested in the outcome of this very important case. Now knowing there are some who are not familiar with this case, I shall discuss it herein.
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the June 22, 1999 opinion for the majority of the court, which held that "the determination of whether an individual is disabled should be made with reference to measures that mitigate the individuals impairment, including in this instance, eyeglasses and contact lenses". It all started when twin sisters, each with uncorrected visual acuity of 20/200 or worse, but each with 20/20 or better corrected, applied for work as pilots with United Airlines. Both had been commuter airline pilots with the appropriate experience to meet United's qualifications. After having submitted applications, they were invited to an interview and flight simulator tests. However, during the interviews they were advised that United had made a mistake since these applicants did not meet the minimum uncorrected vision requirement of 20/100 or better. The interviews were terminated, and neither was offered a job as pilot. The sisters responded by filing charges of disability discrimination under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA).
After filing suit, the Federal District Court dismissed the sisters' claims finding they "could fully correct their visual impairments," and were "not actually substantially limited in any major life activity and thus had not stated a claim that they were disabled within the meaning of the ADA." The lower court found that they had failed to make "allegations sufficient to support their claim that they were 'regarded' by the respondent as having an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity." The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, and the case made its way to the United States Supreme Court for review.
The ADA provides that no covered employer "shall discriminate against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment." The Act defines "disability" as:
- a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the life activities of such individual;
- a record of such an impairment; or
- "being regarded as having such an impairment."
The Supreme Court analyzed what interpretation should be given to the term "disability", particularly in regard to this case. Should a disability be evaluated solely with respect to an individual, or a disabled group as a whole? The Court determined that whether or not a person has a disability under the terms of the ADA is an individualized inquiry. Next, the Court dealt with whether or not a disability should be determined without reference to corrective measures, i.e., glasses or contact lenses. The Court held:
"The agency guidelines' directives that persons be judged in their uncorrected or unmitigated state runs directly counter to the individualized inquiry mandated by the ADA. The agency approach would often require courts and employers to speculate about a person's condition and would, in many cases, force them to make a disability determination based on general information about how an uncorrected impairment usually affects individuals, rather than on the individual's actual condition. For instance, under this view, courts would almost certainly find all diabetics to be disabled, because if they failed to monitor their blood sugar levels and administer insulin, they would almost certainly be substantially limited in one or more major life activities. A diabetic whose illness does not impair his or her daily activities would therefore be considered disabled simply because he or she has diabetes. Thus, the guidelines approach would create a system in which persons often must be treated as members of a group of people with similar impairments, rather than as individuals. This is contrary to both the letter and spirit of the ADA."
The Supreme Court also looked at the Congressional intent in enacting the ADA.
"Finally, and critically, findings enacted as part of the ADA require the conclusion that Congress did not intend to bring under the statute's protection all those whose uncorrected conditions amount to disabilities. Congress found that 'some 43 million Americans have one or more physical or mental disabilities, and this number is increasing as the population as a whole is growing older.' This figure is inconsistent with the definition of disability pressed by petitioners."
If persons such as the twin sister petitioners in this case qualified for ADA protection, the group of those considered "disabled" would increase to more than 160 million people.
Nor did the Supreme Court consider the petitioners to have an impairment which was "substantially limiting their ability to work." Looking to the EEOC's codified regulations interpreting the term "substantial limits" the Court stated:
"When the major life activity under construction is that of working, the statutory phrase 'substantially limits' requires, at a minimum, that plaintiffs allege they are unable to work in a broad class of jobs. Reflecting this requirement, the EEOC uses a specialized definition of the term 'substantially limits' one referring to the major life activity of working:
'significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities. The inability to perform a single particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working.'"
Simply put, since the twin sister petitioners had vision correction of 20/20 or better, and were able to work as commuter airline pilots, they were not "substantially limited" in their ability to work. Thus, they were not protected under the terms of the ADA.
While perhaps this ruling was not the correct one when taken from the prospective of the numerous 20/100 or worse pilots who had hoped to garner jobs with the major airlines, I believe it was the correct ruling. Our country is increasingly becoming divided into numerous sects of specialized individuals, each claiming its own right to special treatment, or qualification as a protected class. Where is it all to end? With this case we at least know that there is now a limit to those protected under the terms of the ADA. Hopefully this will not deter those with vision impairments from seeking a professional career in aviation. There are many jobs, including the commuters, where the vision requirements are not as stringent as the majors. With the recent advances in laser surgery and other non-intrusive corrective means, perhaps one day such optical repairs will fall within airline and military standards, so as to allow a new class of pilots to join their ranks. | |
