New Supreme Court decisions on ADA substantially limit plaintiffs' claims 07-16-99

The U. S. Supreme Court decided 3 cases recently in which it severely restricted the definitions of "disability," and "regarded as disabled." In Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., Murphy v. United Parcel Serv., Inc. and Albertsons, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, the Court held that a person is not considered disabled if there are corrective measures the person uses to minimize the disability. Thus, if a person has severe myopia which is corrected by glasses, or high blood pressure which is corrected by medication, the person is not "disabled" under the ADA.

The Court also held that employees are not "regarded as disabled" simply because an employer has a vision, height or other job-related requirement. And echoing the many Courts of Appeals decisions, the Supreme Court held that in order to be considered substantially limited in the major life activity of working, an individual must be unable to work in a large class of jobs, not just a particular job such as airline pilot or truck driver.

These decisions come on the heels of an American Bar Association report that employers have won 92% of the cases brought under the ADA. And they raise the question of who is protected by the ADA? If a person who is mobility impaired uses a wheelchair, is that sufficient correction that they are no longer considered disabled? Certainly it could be argued that conditions such as diabetes, epilepsy and many others we thought were disabilities are not given these new definitions.

From a fairness perspective, employers still should attempt to accommodate employees with physical restrictions, without getting into the issue of whether or not they legally are disabled. But if accommodation is not possible, these cases may allow employers to avoid legal liability.

Information here is correct at the time it is posted. Case decisions cited here may be reversed. Please do not rely on this information without consulting an attorney first.