1999 Cases

Definition of Disability

Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc. (1999)

Issue: Whether, in a lawsuit brought by two job applicants with severe nearsightedness (myopia) to challenge an airline's minimum vision requirement for global pilots, corrective and mitigating measures should be considered in determining whether an individual is disabled under ADA, and whether the applicants had stated a valid claim that the airline regarded them as disabled.

The Court clarifies the definition of "disabled" under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (1999)

In this case, the Court explains how to determine whether an impairment "substantially limits" a major life activity under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Court concluded that in order to be designated as "disabled" an employee must be unable to perform more than just one task.

Albertson's, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. 555 (1999)

Issue: Whether having monocular vision constitutes per se disability under ADA and whether a DOT safety regulation justified an employer's visual-acuity job qualification standard, even though the DOT regulation contained a waiver provision under which the standard could be waived in an individual case.

The Court held that not all individuals who suffer some sort of physical difficulty are per se "disabled" under the ADA. Instead, those who believe they suffer from a disability must prove their claim on a case-by-case basis by showing that their alleged disability substantially impacts on a major life activity. Moreover, such impact could be mitigated by the availability of artificial aids, such as medications or technical devices, and the body's own corrective measures.

Disability Benefits

Cleveland v. Policy Management Systems Corp (1999)

The Supreme Court agrees with Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) position that a plaintiff can go forward with his or her Americans with Disabilities Act case despite having filed an earlier claim for disability under the Social Security Act alleging he or she is unable to work.

Most Integrated Setting

H. Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999)

Issue: Whether ADA requires a state to place people with mental disabilities in community settings rather than in institutions when the state's treatment professionals have determined that community placement is appropriate, and what standard is to be applied in assessing a state's assertion of a fundamental alteration defense to the obligation to afford such community placement.

The Court then found that the ADA required the placement of patients with mental disabilities in "integrated settings" when they are medically cleared for such settings, they themselves express a desire for such settings, and the resources for such a transfer are available. The Court added that financial constraints might be significant if the state can show that allocation of resources to one patient will cause harm to others.

Last Updated on:
Mon Jun 13, 2022

WHAT IS...

INFORMATION

SERVICES

RESOURCES