Antidiscrimination Law: Judicial Interpretations

Mitigating Measures

The ADA defines a disability as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity. Congress took a broad view of disability when enacting the ADA. The U.S. Supreme Court, in [Page 113]its first case analyzing that definition, appeared to adhere to that definition. The Supreme Court in Bragdon v. Abbott took up the issue of when an impairment's limiting effect is substantial. The divided Court found that Ms. Abbott's asymptomatic HIV substantially limited the major life activity of reproduction. The Court concluded that the risk of transmitting the disease to a fetus or sexual partner constitutes a limitation on the ability to reproduce.

Thus, the Bragdon Court indicated that limitations external to the disabled individual may be taken into consideration. The Court also made clear that the impairment need not completely prevent the major life activity. In this case, the 8–25 percent risk of HIV transmission to a fetus was substantial enough.

The Court considered whether the “substantial” inquiry should take into consideration personal choices as well as objective limitations. Because of the divisions within the majority, the Court did not provide a clear answer. The Court noted that Ms. Abbott had testified that the risk of transmission controlled her decision not to have a child, thus implying that the decision might have turned out differently if she had made the decision for other reasons or if she had chosen to ignore the risk and have a child. However, the majority drew back from giving dispositive weight to the personal choice factor, stating that “in the end, the disability definition does not turn on personal choice.”

However, in a subsequent series of cases interpreting the definition of disability, the U.S. Supreme Court has severely restricted the scope of the statute's protection. The Supreme Court imposed significant restrictions in Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc. and its companion cases, Albertson's Inc. v. Kirkingburg, and Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

In Sutton, twin sisters had vision worse than 20/200 in both eyes, but corrective lenses gave them 20/20 vision. United rejected them for positions as pilots based on a company requirement that pilots must have uncorrected vision of at least 20/100. In Albertson's, Mr. Kirkingburg was a truck driver who was blind in one eye. When the company discovered that he did not meet a federal vision guideline, it fired him without exploring the possibility of a waiver of the federal guideline. In Murphy, the plaintiff was a mechanic with high blood pressure that was near normal when he took medication. His job required him to drive commercial vehicles, and he was fired because the employer believed his high blood pressure would not meet a federal requirement.

...