Disabled ADA: How a Narrowing ADA Threatens To Exclude the Cognitively Disabled, The

Brigham Young University Law Review, 2006 by Catchpole, Nathan, Miller, Aaron

1. Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc.

In Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., decided the same day as Kirkingburg, twin sisters, both of whom suffered from severe myopia, applied to United for employment as commercial airline pilots.103 Each sister's uncorrected visual acuity at the time of application was 20/200 or worse in the right eye and 20/400 or worse in the left eye.104 At that level of visual acuity, the sisters "effectively [could not] see to conduct numerous activities such as driving a vehicle, watching television or shopping in public stores."105 With corrective lenses, the sisters had 20/20 vision.106

Although well below United's uncorrected visual acuity standard for its commercial airline pilots of 20/100 or better,107 United mistakenly invited the sisters to interview further and complete flight simulator tests.108 But upon discovering in the interviews that it had overlooked the sisters' visual deficiencies, United rescinded its invitations and did not offer either sister a pilot position.109

The sisters sued United under the ADA for rejecting their applications on the basis of their visual disability. The trial court dismissed the sisters' complaint for failure to state a claim since fully correctable visual impairment could not "actually substantially limitf] . . . any major life activity."110 The Tenth Circuit affirmed on the same grounds, effectively holding that it was proper to consider the sisters' seeing abilities in their corrected state when determining whether they were disabled under the ADA.111 This decision was "in with other courts of appeal and agency interpretations instructing that ADA disability be determined without regard to corrective measures.112

After noting the split in authority, and after dutifully laying out the ADA's statutory and regulatory framework,113 the Supreme Court addressed the corrective measures question. Since the language of the ADA does not directly address the issue, the sisters argued that the EEOC's guidance should control, namely that "determination of whether an individual is substantially limited in a major life activity [should] be made without regard to mitigating measures."114 United countered that EEOC's guidance should be disregarded because it conflicted with the plain meaning of the ADA, which requires that substantial limitations "actually and presently exist."115 The Court agreed with United, concluding that "the approach adopted by the agency guidelines-that persons are to be evaluated in their hypothetical uncorrected state-is an impermissible interpretation of the ADA."116

The Court stated three justifications for its conclusion.117 First, the Court noted that the ADA uses "substantially limits" in the present indicative form, suggesting that "a person [must] be presently-not potentially or hypothctically-substantially limited" to be "disabled."118 The Court reasoned that a person's use of effective corrective measures could preclude the possibility of simultaneously suffering substantial limitation.119 Second, along those same lines, the Court opined that to judge a person in his or her uncorrected state contravenes the ADA's "individualized inquiry" because it would require courts to speculate as to how the uncorrected impairment usually affects individuals.120 To project general group characteristics onto individuals, the Court concluded, "is contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the ADA."121