Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc.

Last updated

Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc.
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued April 28, 1999
Decided June 22, 1999
Full case nameKaren Sutton and Kimberly Hinton, Petitioners v. United Air Lines, Inc.
Docket no. 97-1943
Citations527 U.S. 471 ( more )
Argument Oral argument
Case history
SubsequentOverturned by Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008
Holding
Mitigating measures should be taken into consideration when determining whether an impairment constitutes a disability under the ADA.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
MajorityJustice O'Connor
ConcurrenceJustice Ginsburg
DissentJustice Stevens, joined by Justice Breyer
Laws applied
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Superseded by
ADA Amendments Act of 2008

Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 22, 1999. The Court decided that mitigating measures should be taken into account when determining whether one's impairment constitutes a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). The holding of this case was later overturned by the passage of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008. [1] [2]

Contents

Background

Twins Karen Sutton and Kimberly Hinton suffered from severe myopia. Their uncorrected visual acuity was 20/200, but with corrective lenses, both were able to function normally. They applied to United Air Lines to be commercial airline pilots, but were rejected by the company due to their uncorrected vision being worse than 20/100. The twins then filed suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The District Court dismissed the complaint, partially holding that the plaintiffs could not be considered “disabled” because their impairment could be fully corrected. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed. The plaintiffs then appealed to the Supreme Court. [3] [4] [5] The American Civil Liberties Union also filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs. [6]

Decision

In a 7–2 decision delivered by Justice O’Connor, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, holding that “the determination of whether an individual is disabled should be made with reference to measures that mitigate the individual's impairment, including, in this instance, eyeglasses and contact lenses.” [7]

Significance

Prior to the Sutton decision, courts were divided on whether ameliorative effects of mitigating measures should be taken into consideration when determining whether an impairment is a disability. Sutton's interpretation of the ADA ended this disagreement. [8]

Subsequent history

The ADA Amendments Act was passed in 2008 in response to controversial Supreme Court decisions, including Sutton and Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams , that narrowed the definition of disability under the ADA. [2] [9] According to the "Findings and Purposes" section of the ADAAA, "the holdings of the Supreme Court in Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) and its companion cases have narrowed the broad scope of protection intended to be afforded by the ADA, thus eliminating protection for many individuals whom Congress intended to protect." [9]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990</span> 1990 U.S. civil rights law

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 or ADA is a civil rights law that prohibits discrimination based on disability. It affords similar protections against discrimination to Americans with disabilities as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which made discrimination based on race, religion, sex, national origin, and other characteristics illegal, and later sexual orientation and gender identity. In addition, unlike the Civil Rights Act, the ADA also requires covered employers to provide reasonable accommodations to employees with disabilities, and imposes accessibility requirements on public accommodations.

Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004), was a case in the Supreme Court of the United States involving Congress's enforcement powers under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001), was a United States Supreme Court case about Congress's enforcement powers under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court decided that Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act was unconstitutional, insofar as it allowed states to be sued by private citizens for money damages.

Warner-Jenkinson Company, Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17 (1997), was a United States Supreme Court decision in the area of patent law, affirming the continued vitality of the doctrine of equivalents while making some important refinements to the doctrine.

Sáenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States discussed whether there is a constitutional right to travel from one state to another. The case was a reaffirmation of the principle that citizens select states and not the other way round.

Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States interpreted the meaning of the phrase "substantially impairs" as used in the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. It reversed the decision by the Court of Appeals to grant a partial summary judgment in favor of the respondent, Ella Williams, that had qualified her inability to perform manual job-related tasks as a disability.

Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624 (1998), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that reproduction does qualify as a major life activity according to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA).

College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board, 527 U.S. 666 (1999), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States relating to the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank, 527 U.S. 627 (1999), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States relating to the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 (1989), was a United States Supreme Court case that sanctioned the death penalty for mentally disabled offenders because the Court determined executing the mentally disabled was not "cruel and unusual punishment" under the Eighth Amendment. However, because Texas law did not allow the jury to give adequate consideration as a mitigating factor to Johnny Paul Penry's intellectual disability at the sentencing phase of his murder trial, the Court remanded the case for further proceedings. Eventually, Penry was retried for capital murder, again sentenced to death, and again the Supreme Court ruled, in Penry v. Johnson, that the jury was not able to adequately consider Penry's intellectual disability as a mitigating factor at the sentencing phase of the trial. Ultimately, Penry was spared the death penalty because of the Supreme Court's ruling in Atkins v. Virginia, which, while not directly overruling the holding in "Penry I", did give considerable negative treatment to Penry on the basis that the Eighth Amendment allowed execution of mentally disabled people.

Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999), is a United States Supreme Court case regarding discrimination against people with intellectual disabilities. The Supreme Court held that under the Americans with Disabilities Act, individuals with intellectual disabilities have the right to live in the community rather than in institutions if, in the words of the opinion of the Court, "the State's treatment professionals have determined that community placement is appropriate, the transfer from institutional care to a less restrictive setting is not opposed by the affected individual, and the placement can be reasonably accommodated, taking into account the resources available to the State and the needs of others with mental disabilities." The case was brought by the Atlanta Legal Aid Society on behalf of Lois Curtis.

City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (1999), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a law cannot be so vague that a person of ordinary intelligence can not figure out what is innocent activity and what is illegal.

<i>Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council</i> 2008 United States Supreme Court case

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court concerning whether federal law restricted the United States Navy's ability to use sonar during drills given the possibility of a harmful effect on marine mammals such as whales.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">ADA Amendments Act of 2008</span>

The ADA Amendments Act of 2008 is an Act of Congress, effective January 1, 2009, that amended the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and other disability nondiscrimination laws at the Federal level of the United States.

Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 433 U.S. 562 (1977), was an important U.S. Supreme Court case concerning rights of publicity. The Court held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments do not immunize the news media from civil liability when they broadcast a performer's entire act without his consent, and the Constitution does not prevent a state from requiring broadcasters to compensate performers. It was the first time the Supreme Court heard a case on rights of publicity.

Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc., 359 U.S. 520 (1959), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Illinois law requiring trucks to have unique mudguards was unconstitutional under the Commerce clause.

<i>United States v. Georgia</i> 2006 United States Supreme Court case

United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided that the protection of Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), passed by the U.S. Congress, extends to persons held in a state prison and protects prison inmates from discrimination on the basis of disability by prison personnel. Specifically, the court held that Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1213112165., is a proper use of Congressional power under the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 5, making it applicable to prison system officials.

Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 227 F. Supp. 2d 1312, was a decision of the United States District Court on 18 August 2002. It concerned the nature of Title III of Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The court determined that Southwest Airlines website is not a “place of public accommodation” as defined in Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The case determined that the Southwest Airlines internet website was not in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 as Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) concerned with a physical existence and hence cannot govern what it is in cyberspace. Judge Seitz also explained that the “virtual ticket counter” Southwest Airlines Co’s website was a virtual construct and hence not a “public place of accommodation” and as such “To expand the ADA to cover "virtual" spaces would be to create new rights without well-defined standards".

This disability rights timeline lists events relating to the civil rights of people with disabilities in the United States of America, including court decisions, the passage of legislation, activists' actions, significant abuses of people with disabilities, and the founding of various organizations. Although the disability rights movement itself began in the 1960s, advocacy for the rights of people with disabilities started much earlier and continues to the present.

Clackamas Gastroenterology Associates, P.C. v. Wells, 538 U.S. 440 (2003), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on April 22, 2003. The court held that in deciding whether the physician-shareholders should be considered employees for purposes of coverage under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), the common law element of control is the main guidepost.

References

  1. Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999)
  2. 1 2 "Questions and Answers about the Department of Justice's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to Implement the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008". archive.ada.gov. Retrieved September 7, 2023.
  3. "Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999)". Justia Law. Retrieved September 7, 2023.
  4. "Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc." Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases/1998/97-1943. Accessed 6 Sep. 2023.
  5. Hall, Julia J. (2000). "Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc.: The Role of Mitigating Measures in Determining Disabilities". Mercer Law Review.
  6. "Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc". American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved March 11, 2024.
  7. 527 U.S. at 475.
  8. Harrington, Christine M. (2000). "The Americans with Disabilities Act: The New Definition of Disability Post: Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc.". Marquette Law Review.
  9. 1 2 "ADA AMENDMENTS ACT OF 2008". US EEOC. Retrieved September 7, 2023.