Sutton v. United Airlines Inc.; Murphy v. United Parcel
Service Inc.; and Albertson’s Inc. v. Hallie Kirkingburg were decided in
June. These are the first cases that include people who have impairments that can be
corrected with prescription lenses or medication. ADA provides protection from
discrimination related to a disability.
"These cases were playing around the edges of what is
considered a disability and were trying to redefine what is a disability," says Susan
Dorn of Washington, D.C., a partner in a law firm that represents non-profit
organizations.
The ADA requires that all businesses and all non-profits,
including bar associations, must be accessible to people with disabilities. The act
defines a disability as: "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits
one or more of his or her major life activities; a record exists of such an impairment;
and the person is regarded as having such an impairment." These Supreme Court
decisions ease the burden for employers when it comes to defending lawsuits involving ADA
claims.
Employers can choose not to hire, or rehire someone when the
person has a disability such as poor vision or hypertension, and they will be protected
from ADA claims.
"These analyses don’t really change the act
very much. But (they do) give employers more confidence that they don’t have
to hire candidates that are not qualified," Dorn adds.
In Sutton v. United Airlines Inc., plaintiffs Karen
Sutton and Kimberly Hinton, who are twin sisters, are commercial airline pilots for
regional commuter airlines. Sharing a goal to fly for a major air carrier, they applied
and were interviewed for commercial airline pilot positions with United in 1992, according
to court documents.
At their interviews, they were informed that their uncorrected
vision disqualified them from pilot positions with United because pilot applicants must
have uncorrected vision of 20/100 or better in each eye. While the twins’ corrected
vision was 20/20 in both eyes, their uncorrected vision did not meet United’s
standards. They sued in 1996, claiming discrimination based on a disability.
The Supreme Court by a 7-2 vote upheld lower court decisions
that held that corrective lenses allowed both sisters to have 20/20 vision and to function
identically to individuals without a similar impairment, Dorn explains.
In Murphy v. United Parcel Service Inc., Vaughn Murphy
applied to become a mechanic at UPS in August 1994. The position required a commercial
driver’s license because mechanics must operate large trucks to perform road tests
and road calls. To qualify, an applicant must also obtain a U.S. Department of
Transportation health card. As part of the application process, Murphy submitted to a
physical exam, and his blood pressure was 186/124. A health card was issued, and he
accepted the offer of employment.
After working at UPS for a month, a company nurse reviewed his
file and determined that his blood pressure did not meet DOT requirements for commercial
truck drivers. The company concluded that the health card was issued in error, and Murphy
was terminated that October. In 1996, he sued for discrimination based on his medical
condition, which he asserted was a disability, Dorn says.
The Supreme Court voted 7-2 to uphold the lower Kansas court
decisions that Murphy’s hypertension did not restrict him from normal activity while
under medication and he was not considered disabled, according to Dorn.
In Albertsons Inc. v. Hallie Kirkingburg, Kirkingburg
had an impeccable driving record. In 1990, he was hired as a driver at the company’s
distribution center in Portland, Ore. Prior to starting, he was examined by a doctor who
certified that his vision met the DOT requirements. DOT regulations require operators of
commercial motor vehicles to have vision of at least 20/40. He performed well on road
tests and was hired, cite court documents.
After a year on the job, Kirkingburg suffered a nondriving,
work-related injury after falling from the truck. As a result, he did not work for nearly
a year. The company policy requires recertification under the DOT standards after a
long-term absence. His vision was then reexamined, and the physician refused to certify
him. His poor vision of 20/200 is caused by amblyopia, also known as lazy eye, which he
had since birth. His right eye, which compensated greatly for his left, was rated 20/20
with corrective lenses. Kirkingburg then obtained a waiver from a DOT pilot regulatory
study program. However, the company refused to re-instate him, and he filed suit in 1995,
according to court documents.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that he was
disabled, but the Supreme Court voted 9-0 to reverse that decision. The Supreme Court held
that Albertsons was permitted to rely upon the DOT standards, was not required to accept
drivers with waivers, and was not obligated to re-instate Kirkingburg, Dorn says.
These three court decisions are significant because they
recognize common sense limits on the scope of the law. The court held that individuals
should not be deemed disabled where their physical conditions can be mitigated by such
measures as eyeglasses and medication, according to Maurice Baskin of Washington, D.C., a
labor and employment lawyer who defends employers in employment law claims, including ADA.
"As the court saw, to have held otherwise would have
unreasonably expanded the number of potentially disabled employees by tens of millions of
people," Baskin says. "The Supreme Court has not relieved employers, however, of
the duty to accommodate the many disabilities which continue to be recognized and to avoid
discrimination against the disabled generally."
The decisions will affect associations, including bar
associations, by increasing employers’ abilities to defend against the most frivolous
disability discrimination claims. Bar leaders who serve on the American Society of
Association Executives Legal Section Council were interested in the Supreme Court
decisions.
"I was surprised at how narrowly the court construed the
ADA. I think these rulings will make life somewhat easier for all employers, but believe
that we still need to make reasonable accommodations for our employees," says Susan
Waters of Boston, executive director of the Massachusetts Bar Association.
To provide such accommodations is in the best interest of the
bar association, regardless of the law, since bar leaders believe in fair treatment of
employees, she adds.
Antonio Alvarado of Austin, executive director of the State Bar
of Texas, agreed with Waters, adding that he believes the ADA is an area fraught with
traps for the unwary employer.
"There are many concerns from an ADA standpoint for bar
associations that go beyond the employment application process," Alvarado says. It
involves access accommodation to the physical plant of the traditional law center as well
as the Web page and other electronic media, he continues.
"These cases should not provide any respite from the
vigilance necessary to comply with ADA standards, particularly since the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission regulations that have not been subject to court interpretation will
still demand careful attention, and no doubt in some lawyers’ eyes, court
challenges," he adds.
