Colorado twin sisters Karen Sutton and Kimberly Hinton wanted to
become commercial airline pilots. But when they applied for pilot
positions with United Airlines, the twins met all the basic job
requirements except one: Both are severely nearsighted. Although
each has 20/20 vision with the aid of her glasses, United still
refused to hire them. In response to the airline's decision,
the sisters sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),
which prohibits discrimination against disabled people. But are
they really disabled?
That's the question the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to
consider when it took the case, after both the District Court and
the Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the
airline. And on June 22, the Supreme Court handed down its decision
in this case, in addition to two others, all raising the question
of exactly who is entitled to ADA protection. In all three cases,
the court issued rulings that narrow the definition of disability.
According to the rulings, none of the plaintiffs--three with poor
eyesight and one with high blood pressure--qualified for protection
under the ADA.
So what does this mean for entrepreneurs? The decisions could
make life easier for employers fraught with questionable lawsuits
over alleged discrimination.
Content Continues Below
In the Sutton case, the sisters offered two arguments. First,
they argued that although otherwise qualified for the job, they
were actually disabled because of their eyesight, so the employer
was obligated by law to provide reasonable accommodations. Second,
they argued that they were "regarded" as disabled, which
under the ADA qualifies people for protection just as much as
actual disability.
On the first issue, the key question was whether the
determination of disability should be made with or without
reference to measures taken to mitigate the disability. That is,
should the court consider whether the twins are disabled without
the aid of their glasses, or with the benefits their glasses
provide? The justices noted that the language of the ADA defines a
disability as an impairment that "substantially limits one or
more major life activities," not that it "could" or
"might" limit them. Since the sisters applied for the job
with their vision improved by corrective lenses, they did not
qualify as disabled. Further, the justices noted, the ADA found
that 43 million Americans have one or more physical or mental
disability. But if everyone who needed glasses, a hearing aid,
heart medication or other corrective device was classified as
disabled, the group would include approximately 160 million
people.
But were the twins denied employment because they were
"regarded" as disabled? The sisters argued that the
airline's vision requirement was based on myth and stereotype,
and that it wrongly assumed they were substantially limited from
the major life activity of working. The court disagreed, noting
that the women were precluded from only one type of job, so the
employer wasn't operating according to its belief in
stereotypes. The ADA allows employers to prefer some physical
attributes over others, so long as the discouraged attributes
aren't actual disabilities.
Steven C. Bahls, dean of Capital University Law School in
Columbus, Ohio, teaches entrepreneurship law. Freelance writer Jane
Easter Bahls specializes in business and legal topics.
Page 1 |
2 |
3 |
4 