•  
  •  
 

Publication Date

2000

Abstract

The Supreme Court's Americans with Disabilities Act decisions in Sutton v. United Air Lines and its companion cases have been extensively criticized as inconsistent with the ADA's purpose and legislative history. In Sutton, the Court held that corrective measures used by an individual to alleviate the effects of a physical or mental impairment should be taken into account when assessing whether a person has a disability under the ADA. The Court's ruling rejected the EEOC's interpretive guidance and the approach taken by a majority of circuit courts. As a practical matter, Sutton significantly curtails the class of persons deemed to have a disability under the ADA, thereby restricting the class of persons with the right to demand reasonable accommodations for their disabilities. The Court's interpretation of what it means to have a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act actually comports with the ADA's functional, civil rights approach to disability. In fact, assessing disability in light of corrective measures fits far better with the ADA's aims and goals than did the EEOC's contrary position. On the other hand, the Sutton Court's holding on what it means to be "regarded as" disabled undermines the ADA's central purpose of combatting discrimination against persons with physical and mental impairments based on stereotypes or hasty generalizations in the minds of employers. Attitudinal barriers,as much as if not more than physical and architectural barriers,prevent full and equal access to jobs for persons who have impairments that do not rise to the level of a disability,as defined by the statute. The Supreme Court's narrow construction of the "regarded as"prong stemmed from its anxiety that a broad interpretation of the "regarded as"prong would invade employers' prerogatives to hire those persons they consider the "best qualified"for the job. This fear is overblown. This Article recommends an interpretation of "regarded as" disabled that would bar employers from relying on overly broad and inaccurate stereotypes about physical and mental impairments but at the same time would give employers a relatively free hand to devise job requirements, tests, and criteria.

Download

Share

COinS