In a recent trilogy of cases, the United States Supreme Court has redefined the parameters of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). These decisions provide employers with new defenses to ADA claims that have previously been rejected by the EEOC and some courts, and set the stage for potential future challenges to EEOC interpretations of the ADA. However, the decisions also provide a road-map for plaintiffs to follow in order to raise claims that comply with the Supreme Court’s new interpretation of the ADA.
The good new for employers is that the Supreme Court ruled that a person with a serious medical condition, who nevertheless functions normally by taking medication or using a corrective device, such as eyeglasses, is not "disabled" under the ADA. The impact of such ‘mitigating measures’ upon a person’s ability to function must be taken into account when determining if he or she is disabled under the ADA.
The three cases before the Court concerned individuals who were denied positions because their employer or prospective employer found that they did not meet the physical standards required for the positions the individuals held or sought.
- In Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., twin sisters with severely myopic vision were denied the opportunity to interview for positions as global airline pilots because they did not meet minimum vision requirement for the job. Both women, however, had normal vision when wearing corrective lenses.
- In Albertsons, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, a truck driver with monocular vision was terminated from employment when the employer’s physician realized that the individual failed to meet Department of Transportation vision standards.
- In Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc., a mechanic/driver of commercial vehicles with severe hypertension was terminated when his employer realized that his blood pressure did not meet the Department of Transportation’s requirements for drivers of commercial vehicles. As in the prior case, this individual’s corrective measure, specifically medication, permitted him to function normally.
Under the ADA, a condition must substantially limit the person’s ability to perform one or more major life activities in order to qualify as a disability. Since the plaintiffs in all three cases were minimizing the debilitating effects of their conditions, the Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs could not show that they suffered from a "disability," a prerequisite to invoking the ADA’s protections.
After these decisions, individuals who can function normally through the use of mitigating measures do not receive protection under the ADA. Employers do not owe a duty under the ADA to make reasonable accommodations for individuals with serious medical conditions who, through the use of mitigation measures such as medication or corrective devices, can function normally.
The Supreme Court did not go so far as to say that conditions which could be mitigated automatically fell outside the ADA. The Supreme Court instead stated that determining "whether a person has a disability under the ADA is an individualized inquiry." In other words, anyone attempting to determine whether an employee is disabled can only take into account mitigating factors actually utilized by the employee. Employers should not consider the existence of mitigating measures which the employee does not use in determining whether–and how–to extend the ADA’s protections to the employee. "The use or non-use of a corrective device does not determine whether an individual is disabled; that determination depends on whether the limitations an individual with an impairment actually faces are in fact substantially limiting."
Additionally, the Supreme Court emphasized that persons with serious medical conditions who can function normally through the use of mitigating measures may still have protection under the ADA if they are "regarded as" disabled by their employer. The Court recognized that, in order to be regarded as disabled in the major life activity of working, the plaintiff must be able to show that the employer believed that the plaintiff was substantially limited from performing a class or broad range of jobs. Accordingly, the Court suggested that plaintiffs are more likely to succeed if they claim that they are regarded as disabled in a primary life activity, such as seeing or walking. Employers should expect an increased number of EEOC charges and court complaints structured in this manner.
In light of the Supreme Court’s decisions, employers should:
1. Train supervisors to make individualized assessments of ability and performance, rather than focus upon the physical or other limitations they perceive in employees or applicants.
2. Review pre-hire and other policies and procedures to ensure that they do not create false expectations about the requirements for any position or impose requirements that are not job-related.
3. Recognize that certain EEOC guidelines and regulations that may be contrary to good business practice may now be subject to legal challenge and review with counsel any particular regulations or guidelines that are a source of concern.
4. Remember that employees who are not protected by the ADA may still be covered by the Family and Medical Leave Act if they have a serious health condition.
For further information, please contact us.
Disclaimer
The ideas presented in these materials are general in nature and not intended to be construed as legal advice and cannot be relied on by any person or entity as legal advice pertaining to any specific situation.