On June 22, the United States Supreme Court issued three decisions that significantly narrow an employer’s obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In those decisions, a 7—2 majority held the ADA does not cover individuals with correctable impairments, an interpretation that may result in protection for only the most profoundly disabled.

The justices dismissed lawsuits brought by a Kansas truck mechanic who was fired for his severe hypertension, an Oregon truck driver who was fired because he sees with only one eye, and two female pilots whose applications for employment were rejected by United Airlines because they need glasses.  In all three cases, the Court concluded the workers had no disability.  Murphy v. United Parcel Service; Sutton v. United Airlines; Albertson’s v. Kirkingburg.
The tone of the rulings comes as somewhat of a surprise following last year’s decision in the case of a dental patient from Maine with asymptomatic HIV. In that case, Bragdon v. Abbott, the first ADA case to reach the Supreme Court, the justices gave the law a liberal interpretation, deciding 5 to 4 that the infected patient had a disability because her disease could, in the future, prove fatal. The Court then reasoned that reproduction was a "major life activity" similar to walking or seeing. This year, however, Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg shifted to the more restrictive interpretation for other diseases and medical conditions, one that focuses on whether a claimant is substantially limited in his or her ability to work.

In the case of the Kansas mechanic, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor stated for the majority that, because the man’s high blood pressure can be controlled with medication, he is not "substantially limited in any major life activity." She noted that he could not function without medication, but said, "Congress did not intend to bring under the statute’s protection all those whose uncorrected conditions amount to disabilities."

The truck driver with monocular vision lost for a somewhat different reason. On the one hand, because he learned to adjust for his bad eye, the Court doubted he had a disability. He had achieved an exemplary driving record and had passed the company’s road test. On the other hand, the Court said, it did not matter to the case whether he had a disability. He was not qualified for his job–and thus was not protected by the ADA–because he failed to meet the minimum vision standard set by the Department of Transportation.

In the third case, nearsighted twin sisters were rejected for commercial airline pilot positions by United Airlines because they did not meet United’s in-house standard for uncorrected visual acuity. However, with corrective lenses, both sisters could see 20/20 or better.  The issue in the United Airlines case was whether the determination of the sisters’ meeting the ADA’s definition of "individual with a disability" should be made with or without considering the effects of corrective lenses. In a somewhat surprising move, the Supreme Court decided that the determination of disability must be made in its mitigated state (with corrective lenses), in part because of the congressional finding in the ADA that recognized some 43 million Americans have one or more physical disabilities.
The Court concluded that Congress did not intend to provide coverage under the ADA to all those "whose uncorrected conditions amount to disabilities," a group that would include more than 160 million people. This decision nullifies established case law in many areas of the country, including the First Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes the District of Maine. It also overturns the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Interpretative Guidance regarding ADA protection for people with correctable impairments.