Sutton v. United Air Lines

SUTTON V. UNITED AIR LINES

In 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case of Sutton v. United Air Lines, wherein the plaintiffs had argued that defendant, United Air Lines, had violated 42 U.S.C. 12101-12213, known as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Plaintiffs, twin sisters, had asserted that the defendant had impermissibly discriminated against them in denying employment as commercial airline pilots by virtue of their severe myopia. United Air Lines maintained certain minimum physical standards for employment as airline pilots, including the requirement of uncorrected vision of at least 20/100. The plaintiffs both fell below that minimum standard, but argued that with corrective lenses, their vision was correctable to 20/20, and therefore, that United Air Lines discriminated against them in denying employment based on their uncorrected vision, because plaintiffs were able to perform the functions of the positions they were denied as well as individuals who satisfied United Air Lines' physical requirements.

The Tenth Circuit Court affirmed the decision in favor of respondent, United Air Lines, and the U.S. Supreme Court heard the appeal by writ of certiorari on April 28, 1999, issuing a decision affirming the prior decision, holding that respondent, United Air Lines, had not violated the ADA with respect to the petitioners.

The U.S. Supreme Court and the Tenth Circuit had affirmed the trial court's ruling that petitioners had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, because no provision of the ADA applied to individuals whose physical impairments were correctable, as in this case, by corrective lenses. The trial court had also held that correctable impaired vision does not qualify as a "disability" under the ADA. Similarly, the trial court had held that petitioners alleged only that respondent, United Air Lines, considered petitioners unable to meet the physical requirements of one specific position as global airline pilots, and not substantially limited in the more general sense of the major life activity of working, within the statutory meaning of the ADA.

The Court also held that the protections afforded by applicable provisions of the ADA are worded in such a way as to indicate that they pertain to disabilities with respect to their condition as corrected by assistance devices or medications. Since petitioners asserted that their physical disabilities were mitigated effectively by corrective lenses, they do not meet the statutory definition of "disabled" by virtue of their uncorrected visual acuity. Finally, the Court held that respondent, American Air Lines, had not regarded petitioners as "substantially limited" in the major life activity of working, in that it merely set out objective physical standards for one specific job, that of global airline pilot. Since those standards did not apply to other positions within its organization, such as that of instructor pilot or regional pilot, petitioners had not been impermissibly discriminated against within the meaning and legislative intent of the ADA.