No, we should look at their condition *with* help. The law protects people whose problems 'substantially limit' them in their daily lives right now. Because glasses fix the sisters' vision, their eyesight doesn't actually limit them. The law is for people who are currently struggling, not for people who would struggle without their glasses. Also, not being able to get one very specific job (long-haul airline pilot) doesn't mean the airline thinks they can't work at all.

No. Congress said the law was for about 43 million Americans who were part of a group that has faced unfair treatment. If we included everyone with problems that can be easily corrected, like needing glasses, the number would be way bigger than 43 million and would include people who aren't part of a disadvantaged group. This shows Congress meant for the law to be more limited.

Yes, we should look at their condition *without* help. This law was meant to help people, so we should read it broadly. Congress's own notes from when they wrote the law said that people with conditions like diabetes (controlled by insulin) or hearing loss (helped by a hearing aid) should be protected. The court's decision ignores this clear instruction and leaves out people the law was designed to protect, like a person with a prosthetic leg who can walk fine but still faces unfair stereotypes.

Yes. The law's history and purpose clearly show we should protect people even if their conditions are correctable. The court is picking the wrong path. If this interpretation causes problems by including too many people, the government agency in charge of the law (the EEOC) could make rules to narrow it down, but the court shouldn't do it.

Yes, we should consider the sisters' vision with their glasses. With glasses, their eyesight is not bad enough to count as a disability under the law. The law cares about real limits, not hypothetical ones. Also, just because they can't be pilots doesn't mean they can't do other jobs.

No, disability should be decided based on a person's condition without helpful items. The law was meant to protect people with serious problems even if those problems can be fixed. The Court's ruling goes against what Congress wanted.

No, the government agencies in charge of the law have always said not to consider things that improve a person's condition. The Court should listen to them. The Court's approach will leave out many people Congress wanted to protect.

I agree disability shouldn't cover fixable problems. Congress wanted to protect a specific disadvantaged group, and people who can correct their problems with glasses, etc. aren't part of that group.

No. The determination of whether an individual is disabled under the ADA must account for the effects of mitigating measures. The plain language of the statute, which defines a disability as an impairment that 'substantially limits' a major life activity, uses a present indicative verb form, indicating the limitation must be present, not hypothetical. The ADA also mandates an individualized inquiry, and assessing individuals in their uncorrected state would be speculative and contrary to this mandate. Furthermore, Congress's finding that 43 million Americans have disabilities is inconsistent with a broader definition that would include the vast number of people with correctable conditions. Finally, petitioners' 'regarded as' claim fails because being disqualified from a single job (global airline pilot) does not mean an employer regards them as substantially limited in the major life activity of working; they must be perceived as precluded from a broad class of jobs.

No. Congress's legislative findings that 'some 43,000,000 Americans have' disabilities and that such individuals constitute a 'discrete and insular minority' are inconsistent with the petitioners' broad interpretation. Including people with correctable disabilities would expand the ADA's coverage far beyond this number and to individuals who are not part of a historically disadvantaged or politically powerless class. This textual evidence indicates Congress's intent to restrict the ADA's coverage to a more confined group.

Yes. The ADA is a remedial statute that should be construed generously, and disability should be determined without regard to mitigating measures. The legislative history, particularly the Senate and House Committee Reports, explicitly states that the determination should be made without considering measures like hearing aids or medication for epilepsy and diabetes. The consistent interpretation of all three federal agencies charged with enforcing the ADA supports this view. The majority's focus on the present, corrected state of an individual illogically excludes people Congress clearly meant to protect, such as those who function well with prosthetic limbs but are still subject to discrimination based on their underlying impairment.

Yes. The statute requires choosing between including some people Congress may not have intended (e.g., those with ordinary glasses) and excluding those it certainly did (e.g., those using prosthetics or epilepsy medication); the statutory purpose and history demand the more inclusive choice. Furthermore, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has the regulatory authority to define 'disability' to carry out the ADA's employment provisions. If the dissent's broad interpretation proved unworkable, the EEOC could issue regulations to draw finer lines and cabin the statute's scope.

Yes. The determination of whether an individual is disabled should be made with reference to corrective measures because the ADA requires that the substantial limitation on a major life activity be a present limitation, not a potential or hypothetical one. Petitioners' visual impairments do not presently substantially limit them in any major life activity because their vision is 20/20 with corrective lenses. Additionally, petitioners have not shown that they are regarded as substantially limited in the major life activity of working, as the position of global airline pilot is a single job, not a class of jobs.

No. The determination of disability should be made without regard to mitigating measures. The ADA was meant to cover those with substantial impairments, even if those impairments can be corrected. The legislative history makes clear that Congress intended those with correctable impairments to be covered. The Court's approach contradicts the letter and spirit of the ADA by excluding many intended beneficiaries of the Act's protections.

No. The agencies charged with implementing the ADA have consistently interpreted the statute as requiring evaluations of disability without regard to mitigating measures. The Court should defer to this reasonable interpretation. The Court's approach will exclude many whom Congress intended to protect. The EEOC could potentially issue regulations to provide more nuanced guidance on who should be covered.

I agree with the majority that the ADA does not cover those with correctable impairments. Congress' findings that the disabled are a 'discrete and insular minority' subject to discrimination indicate an intent to limit coverage to a confined class of historically disadvantaged individuals. Those with correctable impairments do not fit into this class.

Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc.

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot