During the end of its last term, the United States Supreme Court issued four decisions under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). All but one of these decisions significantly limited employee rights under the ADA, particularly with respect to the definition of “disability” and who is protected under the Act. The ADA defines disability as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. This alert discusses these cases and provides guidance for New Jersey employers.

In Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc., two sisters alleged disability discrimination after United Airlines refused to hire them because their uncorrected vision did not meet the airline’s minimum standard for acceptable vision for its pilots (20/100). Although both women’s corrected vision was sufficient for them to be licensed pilots, they could not satisfy United’s higher standard. The Court upheld United’s right to set this job-related standard and found that it was not discriminatory, even though it excluded a class of people with sight impairments. Most significantly, the Court held that employers must consider employees as they appear in their “corrected” state, not as they may be without correction. Because neither woman was substantially limited with her corrective eyewear, the Court held that they are not disabled under the ADA. The Court also held that United did not regard the plaintiffs as disabled merely because they could not meet United’s physical qualification standards.

Similarly, in Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc., the Supreme Court upheld UPS’ decision to discharge a long-haul truck driver who could not qualify for a Department of Transportation (DOT) license due to high blood pressure. The DOT requires this license for all long-haul drivers. Once again, the Supreme Court upheld the employer’s physical qualification standard as a non-discriminatory job requirement, noting that UPS’ standard was consistent with the DOT’s administrative requirement. The Court further held that Mr. Murphy was not “disabled” even though, without medication, his high blood pressure would require him to be hospitalized. Because UPS considered the employee in his corrected state and because his blood pressure was controlled with medication, the Court concluded that Murphy did not satisfy the definition of disability under the ADA. Accordingly, UPS lawfully discharged Murphy for not meeting the essential qualification of possessing a DOT license, and UPS did not regard him as disabled merely by enforcing its qualification standard

Likewise, in Albertson’s Inc. v. Kirkingburg, a driver with monocular vision (only sees out of one eye) unsuccessfully sued for disability discrimination after he was fired for not having a DOT license. The Court held that although Kirkingburg could compensate for his weak eye with his one good eye, Albertson’s did not have to make an exception to its qualification requirement. The Court upheld Albertson’s DOT-based qualification standard as non-discriminatory, and also held that Albertson’s did not regard Kirkingburg as disabled merely because it enforced the standard to the employee’s detriment.

Finally, in a completely different ADA case, Cleveland v. Policy Management Systems Corp., the Supreme Court held that an individual, who classifies herself as completely disabled on an application for Social Security benefits, is not automatically precluded from claiming that she is a qualified individual with disability under the ADA. The Court said that the individual still would have to demonstrate that she can perform the essential functions of the position in question and to explain why her Social Security contention is consistent with her ADA claim.

WHAT IS THE SIGNIFICANCE FOR EMPLOYERS?

These decisions present three important lessons on the ADA for employers.

First, employers should not make blanket determinations about disabilities, but rather, should review each individual’s situation on its own merits.

Second, employers lawfully may establish physical qualification standards where no government standard exists, which are consistent with a government standard, or which are more restrictive than the government standard, if business related and objectively and uniformly applied.

Third, and most important, employers must evaluate each employee’s disability status based on how the employee presents in his/her corrected state and not as his/her condition would be without medication or other corrective devices (glasses, hearing aids, etc.).

While these decisions are very supportive of employers’ positions, they are likely to have limited substantive impact in New Jersey. New Jersey employees, who are covered by the ADA also are covered by the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD). Like the ADA, the LAD prohibits discrimination on the basis of “handicap,” although the definition is more broadly worded than under the ADA. Thus, New Jersey courts generally are more inclusive in their approach to interpreting the definition of “handicap” than are the federal courts in interpreting “disability.” In addition, the ADA caps the maximum dollar amount a plaintiff can recover in a lawsuit, whereas, the LAD contains no such statutory limits.

These decisions are likely to impact New Jersey employers in the types of handicap/disability lawsuits being filed and in the venue of those suits. These decisions are likely to contribute further to the recent trend of plaintiffs’ lawyers filing employment discrimination cases in New Jersey State courts rather than in federal courts. State court cases tend to have less judicial oversight than federal cases and are harder to dismiss on a motion for summary judgment. Therefore, unfortunately, what appears to be good news for employers generally, actually could have negative consequences or be of little benefit to New Jersey employers.

If you have any questions about handicap/disability discrimination, reasonable accommodation obligations, or any other aspect of Labor and Employment law, please don’t hesitate to call Douglas Zucker, Chair of our Employment Practices Group at 973-539-1000.