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 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.