Related Links:

EEOC Web Site

DOT Web Site

Supreme Court Decisions

ADA Original Text

---

On Tuesday, June 22, 1999, the United States Supreme Court substantially narrowed the scope of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in a series of three stunning 7-2 decisions. These decisions reversed the broadening of ADA that had been spearheaded by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The court cited information that if the EEOC approach were accepted, over 160 million Americans would be labeled "disabled" by the Act. Writing for the majority, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor scolded the EEOC: "Most notably, no agency has been delegated authority to interpret the term "disability." ...The EEOC has, nonetheless, issued regulations to provide additional guidance regarding the proper interpretation of this term."

These decisions provide a more solid basis to handle many of the employment decisions that occupational health programs face on a daily basis. In addition, since two of the cases related to Department of Transportation (DOT) driver examinations, these decisions show us how to deal with the interaction between the DOT and ADA.

The three cases focused on what the ADA considers a "disability." This definition is central to understanding who gets legal protection from discrimination. The ADA prohibits discrimination by employers, employment agencies, labor organizations, or joint labor-management committees against qualified individuals with a disability. The Act states 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 ADA defines "disability" as:

In the first case, Karen Sutton and Kimberly Hinton, Petitioners v. United Airlines, the court ruled against nearsighted, twin sisters Karen Sutton and Kimberly Hinton, regional airline pilots who wanted to work for United Air Lines. They sued after they did not get hired because they did not meet United Airlines’ vision standard for uncorrected vision of 20/100 or better. They claimed they were covered by ADA because of their nearsightedness, even though their nearsightedness could be corrected by glasses.

The court disagreed, stating: "[W]e hold that the determination of whether an individual is disabled should be made with reference to measures that mitigate the individual’s impairment, including, in this instance, eyeglasses and contact lenses…[W]e agree with the courts below that petitioners have not stated a claim that they are substantially limited in any major life activity." The court’s logic was that even though some might consider nearsightedness a disability, since it can be corrected to normal it does not substantially limit life activities. Therefore, it does not meet the definition of disability under ADA.

That position did leave the court some clean-up work, however. Because the sisters lost their opportunity to be employed by United Airlines because of their nearsightedness, they argued that the disability did, in fact, affect their ability to work, which is a major life activity. The majority dispensed that argument stating: "Assuming without deciding that working is a major life activity and that the EEOC regulations interpreting the term "substantially limits" are reasonable, petitioners have failed to allege adequately that their poor eyesight is regarded as an impairment that substantially limits them in the major life activity of working. They allege only that respondent regards their poor vision as precluding them from holding positions as a "global airline pilot." Because the position of global airline pilot is a single job, this allegation does not support the claim that respondent regards petitioners as having a substantially limiting impairment."

In the second case, Vaughn L. Murphy, Petitioner, v. United Parcel Service, Inc., Vaughn Murphy had high blood pressure, measured at 186/124, and failed a DOT driver certification examination. As a result, UPS fired Mr. Murphy on the belief that his blood pressure exceeded the DOT’s requirements for drivers of commercial motor vehicles. The 7-2 majority upheld the dismissal, stating that Mr. Murphy "has failed to demonstrate that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he is regarded as disabled… [He] was fired from the position of UPS mechanic because he has a physical impairment—hypertension—that is regarded as preventing him from obtaining DOT health certification…[T]he court concludes UPS did not regard Murphy as disabled, only that he was not certifiable under DOT regulations." In addition, even if Mr. Murphy was considered disabled, the majority stated: "[I]n light of petitioner’s skills and the array of jobs available to petitioner utilizing those skills, petitioner has failed to show that he is regarded as unable to perform a class of jobs. Rather, the undisputed record evidence demonstrates that petitioner is, at most, regarded as unable to perform only a particular job. This is insufficient, as a matter of law, to prove that petitioner is regarded as substantially limited in the major life activity of working."

In the third case, Albertsons, Inc. v. Kirkenburg, the court ruled against Hallie Kirkingburg in a case where Albertsons refused to rehire Kirkingburg into a job requiring DOT certification because Kirkingburg had had amblyopia, an uncorrectable condition that left him with 20/200 vision in his left eye and thus effectively monocular vision. Since 1971, the basic vision DOT regulation has required corrected distant visual acuity of at least 20/40 in each eye and distant binocular acuity of at least 20/40. Justice Souter, writing for the majority, stated: "Some impairments may invariably cause a substantial limitation of a major life activity, but monocularity is not one of them...."

What should occupational health providers learn from these decisions?

• The EEOC position of disabilities has been repudiated by the Supreme Court. As a result, fewer people are now covered by the Act.
• A health problem that can be effectively treated is unlikely to be considered sufficiently limiting under ADA to allow the individual to successfully claim disability.
• The fact that a disability prevents a person from performing a single job or a small group of jobs will not be considered sufficiently limiting to allow an individual to claim that the disability limits the major life function of working.

Companies can successfully avoid ADA claims in cases when they reject or terminate a driver who fails to pass a DOT exam by avoiding any argument about disability under ADA and arguing narrowly that the driver was not certifiable under DOT and certification is a requirement of the job.