Albertson's, Inc. v. Kirkingburg
144 L. Ed. 2d 518, 527 U.S. 555, 1999 U.S. LEXIS 4369 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employer does not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by enforcing a mandatory and otherwise applicable federal safety regulation as a job qualification, even if the government offers an experimental waiver program for that regulation.
Facts:
- Hallie Kirkingburg had amblyopia, a condition leaving him with 20/200 vision in his left eye and effectively monocular vision.
- In August 1990, the grocery chain Albertson's, Inc. hired Kirkingburg as a truck driver after a doctor erroneously certified that he met the Department of Transportation (DOT) vision standard of at least 20/40 acuity in each eye.
- After a work-related injury, a physical examination in November 1992 correctly revealed that Kirkingburg's vision did not meet the basic DOT standard.
- Albertson's fired Kirkingburg for failing to meet the mandatory federal vision requirement.
- Kirkingburg applied for a waiver through a new, experimental DOT program designed to collect data on drivers with vision impairments.
- In early 1993, after his termination, Kirkingburg received a DOT waiver, but Albertson's refused to rehire him.
Procedural Posture:
- Hallie Kirkingburg sued Albertson's, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, alleging his termination violated the ADA.
- Albertson's moved for summary judgment, arguing Kirkingburg was not a 'qualified individual.'
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Albertson's.
- Kirkingburg, as appellant, appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court's grant of summary judgment.
- Albertson's, Inc., as petitioner, was granted a writ of certiorari by the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) require an employer to justify its enforcement of a mandatory federal safety standard as a job qualification when that standard may be waived in an individual case through an experimental government program?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Souter
No. An employer is not required to justify its enforcement of a mandatory federal safety regulation simply because an experimental waiver program exists. The DOT's waiver program did not alter the substance of the binding visual acuity regulation; rather, it was established as an experiment to gather data to assess whether the standard should be modified in the future. The program did not represent a governmental finding that waiver recipients were as safe as drivers who met the underlying standard. Therefore, Albertson's was entitled to treat the federal vision standard as a legitimate, essential job qualification and was not required by the ADA to participate in the government's safety experiment. To require an employer to justify de novo an existing and applicable government safety regulation would be an unreasonable burden not intended by Congress.
Concurring - Justice Thomas
No. The analysis should focus on whether the employee is a 'qualified individual' under the ADA, which requires being able to perform the 'essential functions' of the job. A quintessential function of an interstate truck driver is to be legally qualified to drive a commercial vehicle under binding DOT regulations. Because Kirkingburg concededly could not meet the physical qualification standards, he was not qualified for the job. The waiver program did not modify the regulation's unconditional requirements, and forcing an employer to accept an experimental waiver would be an unreasonable accommodation.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the relationship between the ADA and other federal regulations, providing a strong defense for employers in highly regulated industries. It establishes that an employer may rely on a mandatory federal safety standard as a per se job qualification without needing to independently prove it is a 'business necessity' under the ADA. The ruling insulates employers from liability for adhering to binding federal law, particularly when any available waiver is deemed experimental rather than a substantive modification of the safety standard. The opinion also reinforces the Court's stance from Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc. that disability must be determined on an individualized basis, considering mitigating measures, and rejects the concept that a condition like monocularity is a per se disability.
