A number of cases in recent years have raised the thorny issue of whether the Americans With Disabilities Act protects workers whose disabilities don’t necessarily affect them at work because they take medication or use corrective devices. Now, in a trio of important new decisions, the U.S. Supreme Court has overturned the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s long-standing position and resolved the question in favor of employers, ruling that workers whose impairments can be mitigated usually won’t be considered disabled under the law.
400+ pages of state-specific, easy-read reference materials at your fingertips—fully updated! Check out the Guide to Employment Law for California Employers and get up to speed on everything you need to know.
Nearsighted Pilots Denied Jobs
In the new cases, employees had a variety of physical conditions that caused them to be denied employment for safety-related reasons. Nearsighted twin sisters brought the first case after United Airlines rejected them for “global” pilot positions because they didn’t meet the airline’s requirement of uncorrected vision of 20/100 or better for these jobs. Their vision with glasses or contact lenses was 20/20 or better.The other cases involved employees who were fired for failing to meet federal Department of Transportation (DOT) requirements – a truck driver who was legally blind in one eye and a mechanic with high blood pressure. The driver learned to adjust his depth and peripheral perception to see properly, and the mechanic who was also required to operate commercial vehicles, took medication that controlled his hypertension.
Must Consider Corrective Measures
All the workers sued, claiming their employers’ physical requirements violated the ADA by discriminating against them based on their disabilities. But the employers responded that the workers didn’t meet the job qualifications and couldn’t sue under the ADA because they were generally able to function normally with corrective measures, and therefore weren’t disabled under the law.The U.S. Supreme Court agreed with the employers. A person disabled under the ADA must be “substantially limited in a major life activity” – not just potentially or hypothetically disabled. That means any measures that counteract the person’s impairment must be taken into account. Otherwise, the court said, the law could potentially cover close to 160 million people who have correctable problems.
Legal Obstacles For Workers
Employees who feel they have been discriminated against will have to overcome two big legal hurdles to be protected by the ADA. First, workers will need to prove they’re “substantially limited in a major life activity” by their impairments even when using corrective measures – for example, being unable to work in a broad class of jobs rather than in just one particular job. And second, they will have to prove they are still qualified to work, with an accommodation if necessary. The court noted, for example, that the nearsighted sisters weren’t disabled. They could fill other positions that used their skills, such as “regional” pilots or pilot instructors – even though they couldn’t work as global pilots because of the higher vision standards required for that position.
New Limit On “Regarded As” Claims
Using a similar analysis, the court also made it tougher for workers to argue that an employer “regarded” them as disabled, and therefore violated the ADA. To prevail, an employee will have to show an employer mistakenly believed the person’s impairment substantially limited a major life activity, such as working in an entire class of jobs rather than the one job at issue.
Fewer Employees Protected; Your Right To Set Job Qualifications
The court’s rulings strongly favor employers and will dramatically decrease the number of workers who can claim ADA protection. Whole categories of workers traditionally considered ADA-covered are no longer automatically protected – such as the hearing impaired who use hearing aids or epileptics who control their condition with medication. They must now show they have substantially limiting conditions even with the corrective measures, yet can do the job with or without an accommodation.The court also affirmed that you have a right to set reasonable hiring standards, as United Airlines did. You can decide that some physical characteristics that don’t reach the level of an ADA impairment, such as specific height or build, are preferable to others. You also can say that certain medical conditions that are limiting but not so serious as to be covered by the ADA – like a bad back in some cases – are undesirable.
Consider Reasonable Accommodations
Keep in mind, however, that California has its own disability discrimination law, and there’s no guarantee state courts will follow the U.S. Supreme Court’s approach. Under either law, you may set legitimate occupational requirements but make sure they’re based on your specific business or health and safety needs and they’re not used to unlawfully discriminate. Then analyze each case, evaluating whether a reasonable accommodation would allow the person to meet your minimum requirements and perform the job.