The Supreme Court focuses on the ADA - includes related article on law's legal background - Americans with Disabilities Act

HR Magazine, Sept, 1999 by Timothy S. Bland

The highest court in the land gives employers some common-sense misguidance for determining disability.

For the second time in as many years, the U.S. Supreme Court has addressed the issue of who is protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). However, unlike the rulings handed down in 1998, this year's decisions appear to offer better news to employers.

Last year, in Bragdon v. Abbott, the court interpreted the ADA expansively and ruled that even someone who has asymptomatic HIV may be considered disabled under the act.

In three cases this year, Sutton v. United Air Lines (130 F.3d 893), Murphy v. United Parcel Service (141 F.3d 1185)and Albertsons v. Kirkingburg (143 F.3d 1228), the court narrowed the definition of who is covered by the ADA. In these cases, the court ruled that individuals who have physical impairments but who can function normally with mitigating measures, such as eyeglasses or medication, generally are not disabled under the ADA.

As a result, employers and courts now may consider individuals as they actually function, without being forced to speculate about how they might function without medical aids.

These rulings are important because the ADA does not clearly state if mitigating measures, such as medications, should be considered when determining disability. In other words, if medication sufficiently controls a person's condition, is that person still considered disabled under the ADA? Before the recent Supreme Court pronouncements, lower federal courts had different answers to that question.

Most courts accepted the approach of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and considered an individual's condition in an unmedicated, or unmitigated, state. Other courts disagreed, holding that disability should be determined in light of mitigating measures.

The Supreme Court decided to hear the Kirkingburg, Murphy and Sutton cases to resolve the issue. Fortunately for employers, the court adopted a common-sense approach: Take employees exactly as they are, mitigating measures and all.

The Decisions

In the Kirkingburg case, the Albertsons supermarket chain discharged an Oregon truck driver with monocular vision after he failed a vision test. Even with corrective lenses, the driver could not meet vision requirements set by federal regulations for commercial drivers. However, according to the Supreme Court, the driver's brain had developed subconscious mechanisms for coping with his visual limitations and his body thus compensated for the impairment.

In the Sutton case, twin sisters applied for jobs as global pilots with United Air Lines but were rejected because they were nearsighted. Although they had 20-20 vision when they wore corrective lenses, United required uncorrected vision of 20100 for that particular pilot position. Neither sister met this requirement.

In the Murphy case, UPS discharged a mechanic because he had high blood pressure. As part of his job, the mechanic was required to operate commercial vehicles. Even with medication, his blood pressure was not low enough to meet Department of Transportation (DOT) blood-pressure regulations for operators of commercial motor vehicles.

In all three cases, the plaintiffs argued that their medical conditions should be viewed in their unmitigated state, and that-as a result - they were disabled under the ADA and entitled to the act's protection. The Supreme Court rejected their contentions.

The court ruled that employers should consider employees - or potential employees - as they actually function, not as they could or might function without their medication or other mitigating measures, when deciding whether they are disabled under the ADA.

The court noted that any other interpretation might label the majority of Americans - around 160 million people - as persons with disabilities, whereas Congress explicitly stated in the ADA that it sought to protect an "insular minority" of 43 million Americans.

Implications for Employers

While employers should consider the new decisions a major victory because they help bring order to the chaos caused by the ADA's lack of clarity, some cautionary notes are in order. A very real possibility still exists that individuals who successfully use mitigating measures will be considered disabled under the law.

Here are some important caveats:

Don't treat employees as if they are disabled. Employees who can control their conditions won't normally be considered disabled - unless you treat them that way. Employees who are "regarded as" being disabled by their employers automatically gain the protection of the ADA.

For example, assume a worker who suffers from depression takes medication that completely controls his condition. His employer learns he is taking the medication and discharges him based on the assumption that people taking psychiatric medication cannot successfully perform their jobs. Because the employer "regards" the employee as disabled, the employee will be considered disabled and protected by the law.