Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc . 527 U.S. 471 (1999)

1. Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc.527 U.S. 471 (1999) Sherrie Brown LSJ 434/CHID 434 Winter 2010

2. FACTS • Twin sisters (with severe myopia that is correctable to 20/20 vision) contend that UAL failure to hire them as global airline pilots was discrimination on the basis of disability and a violation of ADA Title I. • UAL argued that they were not disabled under the statutory definition and therefore were not owed ADA protections—i.e., could not bring a complaint under ADA. • Sisters argued that they met the definition because they are substantially limited in a MLA of seeing or regarded as substantially limited in a MLA of working. • 10th Circuit Court of appeals held for UAL on all counts and the case was dismissed.

3. ISSUE: • Did Congress intend that determining whether an individual is “disabled” for purposes of ADA coverage does or does not consider mitigating factors? • Under both Subsection (A) and Subsection (C) of the statute.

4. HOLDING: • Yes, Congress intended that mitigating factors be considered when determining whether an individual is “disabled” for purposes of the ADA.

5. REASONING: • Majority: • Refused to defer to EEOC regulations or guidance on mitigating measures in determining disability; EEOC does not have the delegated authority to interpret the term under ADA. • Phrase “substantially limits” is in the present indicative verb tense. • Requirement that disabilities be assessed on individual basis. • Congress’ finding that only 43 M were covered. • In regards to Subsection (C) no evidence that UAL regarded twins as SL in MLA of working—requires a broad class of jobs.

6. HOLDING cont. • Dissent: • Argued that this interpretation created bizarre results—i.e., ADA protections disappear when individuals attempt to minimize the impact of their disabilities on function. • Argued for EEOC interpretation on basis of legislative history and the fact that 8/9 circuits agreed with that interpretation.

7. SIGNIFICANCE • Severe limitations in the number of plaintiffs who can get their complaint heard. • If you do not meet the statutory definition of disability, can not claim disability discrimination. • So…diabetics in control, epileptics in control, use of prosthetic? (what does the majority say to this?) • Does the Court address the physical requirement UAL has for global pilots? • Primarily see these arguments in employment cases.