## Facts

- A commercial truck driver had amblyopia, leaving him with effectively monocular vision (20/200 in one eye) that could not be corrected.
- Department of Transportation (DOT) rules required commercial drivers to have corrected visual acuity of at least 20/40 in each eye and specified binocular acuity standards.
- A pre-employment medical certification mistakenly indicated the driver met DOT vision requirements.
- After a later examination showed he did not meet DOT standards, he was told to seek a DOT waiver available through a program initiated that year.
- The employer terminated him for failing to meet DOT vision standards and refused to rehire him even after he obtained a DOT waiver.
- The driver sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), alleging discriminatory termination and refusal to rehire based on disability.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the employer, concluding the driver was not qualified because he did not meet the basic DOT standards and the waiver program did not change those standards.
- The court of appeals reversed, finding the driver disabled due to a significant difference in how he sees and concluding the employer could not rely solely on DOT standards given the waiver program.
- The Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether monocular vision automatically constitutes a “disability” under the ADA, or instead requires an individualized showing that the impairment substantially limits a major life activity after considering mitigating measures and adaptations.
2. Whether an employer that uses DOT vision standards as a job qualification must separately justify that standard under the ADA when DOT operates a waiver or experimental program.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and reinstated summary judgment for the employer.
- The Court held that monocular vision is not per se a disability; the claimant must prove a substantial limitation of a major life activity through an individualized, fact-specific inquiry considering mitigating measures, including subconscious compensations.
- The Court held the employer could rely on the basic DOT vision standards as a job qualification without independently defending them under the ADA, because the regulation had not been shown to violate the ADA.
- The Court treated the DOT waiver program as an experimental program that did not alter the underlying mandatory vision standards.

## Legal Principles

- ADA disability status requires proof that an impairment “substantially limits” a major life activity; a mere difference in the manner of performing an activity is insufficient.
- Determining substantial limitation requires an individualized assessment of the person’s actual functioning, including the effects of mitigating measures and compensatory mechanisms.
- An employer may enforce an applicable federal safety regulation as a job qualification standard without separately justifying it under the ADA, absent a showing that the regulation itself violates the ADA.
- Agency waiver or pilot programs do not necessarily modify the baseline regulatory standard, and employers are not required to treat such programs as changing the governing qualification rule.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a monocular employee must prove an individualized, substantial limitation (considering mitigating measures) to qualify as disabled under the ADA, and that an employer may apply uninvalidated DOT vision standards as a job qualification despite the existence of a waiver program.


Albertson's, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. 555 (1999)