Supreme Court to Rule on Disability Act Cases

WASHINGTON â€”  The Supreme Court announced Friday that it will rule this year on whether the federal law that protects disabled people from discrimination covers an airline pilot with bad eyes, a mechanic with high blood pressure or millions of other Americans whose disabilities can be corrected.

Congress passed the Americans With Disabilities Act in 1991 and said employers may not discriminate against a “qualified individual with a disability.� Eight years later, however, the courts are split on what that means.

United Airlines refused to hire Karen Sutton as a pilot because she is nearsighted. In her better eye, she has an uncorrected vision of 20/200, meaning she can see an object at 20 feet that a person with excellent vision could see at 200 feet.

Wearing glasses, her vision is 20/20. She flies for a commuter airline but sued United for discrimination under the federal law. Sutton says she is “extremely well qualified� to be a pilot, except for her weak, unaided vision.

However, her complaint was thrown out before a trial by a judge and the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. Both concluded that the antidiscrimination law did not extend that far.

The same appeals court also rejected the claim of a mechanic who was dismissed by United Parcel Service because he had severe hypertension. The mechanic, Vaughn Murphy, said the inherited problem could be controlled through medication, and he met the safety standards set by the U.S. Department of Transportation. But the company said he did not meet its physical standards.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, has taken an opposite approach. It recently cleared the way for an Oregon truck driver who is nearly blind in one eye to sue the grocery chain Albertson’s Inc., which had fired him. The company said his vision problem disqualified him for continued employment, but the appeals court noted the driver, Hallie Kirkingburg, had an excellent driving record and passed the vision tests when he was hired.

“The ADA does not require employers to hire or retain any person who is not capable of doing his job properly,� said Judge Stephen Reinhardt of Los Angeles. “It merely prohibits employers from discriminating against qualified workers on account of their disabilities.�

The appeals court cleared the way for a trial in Kirkingburg’s case, where a jury could consider whether the trucker was qualified for the job.

But the Supreme Court said Friday it will hear all three cases. Oral arguments will be heard in April in Sutton vs. United Airlines, 97-1943; Murphy vs. United Parcel Service, 97-1992; and Albertson’s vs. Kirkingburg, 98-591.

The outcome will likely have a broad effect on employers and workers. Studies have estimated that 5 million Americans wear hearing aids, as many as 50 million have hypertension and nearly 150 million wear glasses or contact lenses to correct their vision.

Lawyers for the workers say that if these simple disabilities can be easily corrected, they should be protected from discrimination under the law. The companies argue, however, that they need to set physical demands to ensure safety.

In its only ruling interpreting the disability act, the high court, on a 5-4 vote, ruled in June that people with the virus that causes AIDS are protected under the law even if they have no symptoms of the disease.