Master Supreme Court decision holding that ADA disability is assessed with mitigating measures and that being unqualified for a single job does not establish a "regarded as" disability. with this comprehensive case brief.
Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc. is a cornerstone in American disability discrimination jurisprudence under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). Decided as part of the Supreme Court's 1999 ADA "trilogy" alongside Murphy v. UPS and Albertsons, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, Sutton adopted a narrow construction of the ADA's definition of "disability." The Court held that individuals must be evaluated in their mitigated state—i.e., with corrective or other mitigating measures—when determining whether an impairment "substantially limits" a major life activity. It also clarified that an employer's perception that an employee cannot perform one particular job does not, without more, mean the employer "regarded" the employee as substantially limited in the major life activity of working.
The decision dramatically affected ADA litigation for nearly a decade by restricting who qualified as "disabled," leading to many claims being dismissed at the threshold. Congress later responded with the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA), which broadened the definition of disability and expressly rejected Sutton's mitigating-measures rule in most contexts. Nonetheless, Sutton remains essential reading: it frames the pre-ADAAA doctrine, explains the "working" major life activity analysis, and highlights judicial approaches to agency deference and pleading burdens in ADA cases. Even today, Sutton's reasoning on the "regarded as" pathway and job-class analysis continues to inform how courts parse ADA disputes, especially given the ADAAA's specific carve-out for ordinary eyeglasses and contact lenses.
527 U.S. 471 (1999)
Twin sisters with severe myopia applied to be global (worldwide) airline pilots with United Air Lines. Each had uncorrected visual acuity of 20/200 or worse but could see 20/20 or better with corrective lenses. United, however, maintained a vision standard requiring uncorrected visual acuity of at least 20/100 for pilot positions. Although the Federal Aviation Administration permitted commercial airline pilots to fly with corrective lenses, United declined to hire the applicants because their uncorrected vision did not meet its internal standard. The applicants alleged they were actually disabled due to substantial limitations in the major life activities of seeing and working, or alternatively that United regarded them as disabled. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, and the Tenth Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve whether the ADA's definition of "disability" should be assessed with or without considering mitigating measures and to consider the sufficiency of the "regarded as" theory when an employer deems an individual unqualified for a single job.
Under the ADA, must courts consider mitigating measures (such as corrective lenses) when determining whether a person is substantially limited in a major life activity, and does an employer's refusal to hire based on a vision standard for one pilot job constitute regarding an individual as substantially limited in the major life activity of working?
Pre-ADAAA ADA: (1) Whether an impairment "substantially limits" a major life activity is determined in light of mitigating measures actually used by the individual; (2) To be "regarded as" disabled, an employer must perceive the person as having an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity; for working, the perceived limitation must preclude a broad class or range of jobs, not merely a single, particular position.
Yes, mitigating measures must be considered in assessing disability under the ADA; and no, regarding an individual as unfit for a single job based on a specific job requirement does not establish that the person is regarded as substantially limited in the major life activity of working.
The Court read the ADA's definition of disability—"a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities"—to require assessment in the individual's present, mitigated state. It emphasized textual cues and practical consequences: if impairments corrected to normal functioning (e.g., common vision problems corrected by eyeglasses) automatically counted as disabilities, the ADA would sweep in far more than the approximately 43 million people Congress referenced. Evaluating individuals with their mitigating measures, the petitioners functioned essentially identically to persons without visual impairments for most daily activities, and thus were not substantially limited in seeing or other major life activities. The Court accorded only limited (Skidmore) deference to contrary EEOC interpretive guidance that suggested disregarding mitigating measures, finding it not entitled to Chevron deference and unpersuasive against the statutory text and structure. The Court also noted that the ADA's structure, including its separate "record of" and "regarded as" prongs, assumes an assessment of actual, not hypothetical, limitations when an individual uses corrective devices. On the "regarded as" claim, the Court explained that to be regarded as substantially limited in working, an employer must view the individual as unable to perform a broad class of jobs, not just a single job with unique requirements. United's standard was tied to a particular pilot position with an uncorrected-vision threshold. Petitioners' own allegations indicated they were qualified for numerous other pilot jobs and in fact were working as regional pilots, undermining any inference that United regarded them as broadly unemployable. Consequently, the pleadings did not state a viable "regarded as" claim. Because petitioners were not disabled under the ADA's actual-impairment or regarded-as prongs, the Court affirmed dismissal without reaching whether United's vision standard was job-related and consistent with business necessity.
Sutton narrowed the ADA's coverage by requiring courts to factor in mitigating measures when determining disability and by confining "regarded as" claims to perceptions of broad job-class limitations. The decision led many ADA plaintiffs to fail at the threshold disability inquiry. In 2008, Congress enacted the ADAAA, expressly rejecting Sutton's mitigating-measures rule in most contexts and broadening the "regarded as" prong so that adverse action taken because of an impairment generally suffices without proof of substantial limitation. Notably, however, the ADAAA preserves an exception for ordinary eyeglasses and contact lenses when evaluating visual acuity, so Sutton's bottom-line result for corrected myopia may still hold under the actual-impairment prong. For law students, Sutton is vital for understanding pre- and post-ADAAA frameworks, the analysis of the major life activity of working (including the class-of-jobs concept), and the role of agency guidance in statutory interpretation.
Sutton held that courts must evaluate whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity in light of the individual's mitigating measures, such as medications or corrective devices. Because the petitioners' myopia was fully corrected to 20/20 with lenses, they were not substantially limited in seeing or other major life activities under the ADA as interpreted at the time.
The ADAAA largely overruled Sutton by instructing that disability should be assessed without regard to the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures. A key caveat, however, is that the ADAAA directs courts to consider the ameliorative effects of ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses when evaluating visual acuity. Thus, for common correctable myopia, the result under the actual-impairment prong may still mirror Sutton, while other impairments (e.g., controlled diabetes, medicated hypertension) are now generally assessed without considering corrective measures.
The Supreme Court concluded that United did not regard the petitioners as substantially limited in a major life activity. At most, United believed they did not meet the uncorrected-vision requirement for one particular position—global airline pilot. Under Sutton, being regarded as unable to perform a single, specialized job is insufficient. To be regarded as substantially limited in working, a plaintiff must show the employer perceived them as precluded from a broad class or range of jobs.
The Court assumed without deciding that working is a major life activity. It then applied the class-of-jobs analysis and found the petitioners' allegations inadequate. Many courts continue to recognize working as a major life activity, but they require rigorous proof that the plaintiff is substantially limited across a broad range of jobs—an analysis that remains relevant even after the ADAAA.
No. Because the Court held the petitioners were not disabled under the ADA's definition (actual or regarded-as), it affirmed dismissal at the threshold and did not reach the separate question whether United's uncorrected-vision requirement qualified as a lawful qualification standard under the ADA.
Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc. marked a decisive, restrictive turn in early ADA jurisprudence by requiring courts to consider mitigating measures when evaluating disability and by elevating the threshold for regarded-as claims tied to the major life activity of working. Its insistence on a class-of-jobs analysis and its limited deference to contrary EEOC guidance shaped federal disability discrimination law for nearly a decade.
Although the ADAAA later broadened ADA coverage and repudiated much of Sutton's mitigating-measures framework, Sutton remains integral to understanding the evolution of disability law, the contours of the working major life activity, and the interaction between statutory text and agency interpretation. For students and practitioners, it is a foundational case for analyzing disability status, pleading strategies, and the scope of employer qualification standards under the ADA.
Need to cite this case?
Generate a perfectly formatted Bluebook citation in seconds.
Use our Bluebook Citation Generator →