Justice Stevens Stood Up for a Soldier with a Prosthetic Leg: An ADA Case

Justice John Paul Stevens’ sarcastic and stinging dissent in Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc. (1999) offers a practical lesson on the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

Brief background: The airline denied employment to twin sisters as airline pilots because of severe myopia. 

That sounds like a problem for a jet pilot … until you read on that they worked without any problem as pilots for United’s commuter airline. They wanted to fly bigger planes for more money.

For the oddest of reasons, the pilots lost before the Supreme Court. The majority opinion reasoned that because the pilots’ corrected vision was 20/20 with glasses, they were not disabled and therefore could not proceed with a disability lawsuit under the ADA.

The case had major ramifications. If a person had medications that controlled diabetes, they were no longer disabled and therefore could not sue for a reasonable accommodation. Ditto for people with prosthetic devises that restored normal function—they weren’t covered by the ADA. The list was nearly endless.

Justice Stevens wrote this caustic dissent, employing several sight metaphors (see black text in body of red text) to make his point clear:

“When it enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA or Act), Congress certainly did not intend to require United Air Lines to hire unsafe or unqualified pilots. Nor, in all likelihood, did it view every person who wears glasses as [disabled]… Indeed, by reason of legislative myopia it may not have foreseen that its definition of “disability” might theoretically encompass, not just “some 43,000,000 Americans,” … but perhaps two or three times that number…. It is quite clear that the threshold question whether an individual is “disabled” within the meaning of the Act—and, therefore, is entitled to the basic assurances that the Act affords—focuses on her past or present physical condition without regard to mitigation that has resulted from rehabilitation, self-improvement, prosthetic devices, or medication. One might reasonably argue that the general rule should not apply to an impairment that merely requires a nearsighted person to wear glasses. But I believe that, in order to be faithful to the remedial purpose of the Act, we should give it a generous, rather than a miserly, construction.”

….

An example of a rather common condition illustrates this point: There are many individuals who have lost one or more limbs in industrial accidents, or perhaps in the service of their country in places like Iwo Jima. With the aid of prostheses, coupled with courageous determination and physical therapy, many of these hardy individuals can perform all of their major life activities just as efficiently as an average couch potato. If the Act were just concerned with their present ability to participate in society, many of these individuals’ physical impairments would not be viewed as disabilities. Similarly, if the statute were solely concerned with whether these individuals viewed themselves as disabled—or with whether a majority of employers regarded them as unable to perform most jobs—many of these individuals would lack statutory protection from discrimination based on their prostheses.

The … statute’s three-pronged definition, however, makes it pellucidly clear that Congress intended the Act to cover such persons. The fact that a prosthetic device, such as an artificial leg, has restored one’s ability to perform major life activities surely cannot mean that subsection (A) of the definition is inapplicable. Nor should the fact that the individual considers himself (or actually is) “cured,” or that a prospective employer considers him generally employable, mean that subsections (B) or (C) are inapplicable.

…. In my view, when an employer refuses to hire the individual “because of” his prosthesis, and the prosthesis in no way affects his ability to do the job, that employer has unquestionably discriminated against the individual in violation of the Act.

Farewell, Justice Stevens. Thank you for your clear vision.
PS: Congress overturned the Court's decision in Sutton. He won, after all.