Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc

In Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999), interpreting the meaning of the "regarded as disabled" prong of the definition of disability, the Supreme Court recognized that a perception of disability can be as damaging a form of discrimination as an actual disability. In Sutton, severely myopic twin sisters aspired to be global airline pilots. The court said about real and perceived disabilities: "In both cases, it is necessary that a covered entity entertain misperceptions about the individual--it must believe either that one has a substantially limiting impairment that one does not have or that one has a substantially limiting impairment when, in fact, the impairment is not so limiting. These misperceptions often 'result from stereotypic assumptions not truly indicative of . . . individual ability.'" The court repeated its previous statement that " 'society's accumulated myths and fears about disability and disease are as handicapping as are the physical limitations that flow from actual impairment.' " It noted that the purpose of the "regarded-as" prong is to protect individuals rejected from a job because of the "myths, fears and stereotypes" associated with disabilities. In other words, in order to find a perceived disability, the perception must stem from a false idea about the existence of or the limiting effect of a disability. ( Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., supra, 527 U.S. at p. 489 119 S. Ct. at p. 2150.) The Sutton court also recognized the right of employers to establish physical job requirements: "By its terms, the ADA allows employers to prefer some physical attributes over others and to establish physical criteria. An employer runs afoul of the ADA when it makes an employment decision based on a physical or mental impairment, real or imagined, that is regarded as substantially limiting a major life activity. Accordingly, an employer is free to decide that physical characteristics or medical conditions that do not rise to the level of an impairment--such as one's height, build, or singing voice--are preferable to others, just as it is free to decide that some limiting, but not substantially limiting, impairments make individuals less than ideally suited for a job." ( Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., supra, 527 U.S. at pp. 490-491.) The Sutton court decided that the nearsighted twins were not disabled because their vision was correctable. Nor could they allege the airline regarded them as disabled because the airline would not hire them as global airline pilots. The court held that the airline's refusal to hire because of a vision requirement did not constitute a substantial limitation on the major life activity of working because the requirement involved only a single job. Nor would it constitute such a limitation if a "substantial number of airline carriers had similar vision requirements . . . . It is not enough to say that if the physical criteria of a single employer were imputed to all similar employers one would be regarded as substantially limited in the major life activity of working only as a result of this imputation. An otherwise valid job requirement, such as a height requirement or color blindness, does not become invalid simply because it would limit a person's employment opportunities in a substantial way if it were adopted by a substantial number of employers." ( Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., supra, 527 U.S. at pp. 493-494.) The Supreme Court found that "a person whose physical or mental impairment is corrected by mitigating measures still has an impairment, but if the impairment is corrected it does not 'substantially limit' a major life activity." Id. at 483. The Supreme Court in Sutton noted that if mitigation was not considered it "would . . . force courts and employers to make a disability determination based on general information about how an uncorrected impairment usually affects individuals, rather than on the individual's actual condition." Sutton, 527 U.S. at 483, 119 S. Ct. 2139. As an example the Supreme Court described the case of a diabetic taking insulin. If the mitigating measures were ignored "all diabetics would be found to be disabled, because if they failed to monitor their blood sugar levels and administer insulin, they would almost certainly be substantially limited in one or more major life activities." Id. In Sutton the Supreme Court disagreed with the EEOC Guidelines, asserting that "the agency guidelines' directive that persons be judged in their uncorrected or unmitigated state runs directly counter to the individualized inquiry mandated by the ADA." Sutton, 527 U.S. at 483.