## Facts

- Karen Sutton and Kimberly Hinton, identical twins with severe myopia, had uncorrected vision of 20/200 or worse but achieved normal vision with eyeglasses or contact lenses.
- They applied to United Air Lines to work as commercial airline pilots.
- United imposed a minimum uncorrected visual-acuity requirement of 20/100 for pilots and rejected the applicants solely because they did not meet that uncorrected standard.
- The applicants sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), alleging they were (1) actually disabled because myopia substantially limited major life activities, or (2) “regarded as” disabled because United treated them as having such a limiting impairment.
- The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim; the Tenth Circuit affirmed.

## Issues

1. When determining whether an impairment “substantially limits” a major life activity under the ADA, must courts consider the impairment in its unmitigated state or in light of mitigating measures the individual uses (e.g., corrective lenses)?
2. Did the applicants plausibly allege that United “regarded” them as having an impairment that substantially limited the major life activity of working?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that disability under the ADA is assessed in light of mitigating measures actually used by the individual.
- Because the applicants’ vision was fully corrected, they were not substantially limited in seeing or other major life activities and therefore did not plead an actual disability.
- The applicants also failed to plead that United regarded them as substantially limited in working; at most, United regarded them as unable to satisfy the requirements of a single job (global airline pilot).

## Legal Principles

- ADA “disability” under the “substantially limits” definition requires a present, individualized assessment of the person’s functional limitations.
- In assessing whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity, courts consider mitigating measures the person uses that lessen or eliminate the limitation (including eyeglasses and contact lenses).
- Under the “regarded as” prong, being viewed as unable to perform one particular job does not constitute being regarded as substantially limited in working; the alleged restriction must reach a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs.
- EEOC regulatory definitions may inform the analysis, but the statute’s text and structure control the disability inquiry.

## Conclusion

The Court held that the ADA’s definition of disability requires considering corrective measures that the individual actually uses and that an employer’s refusal to hire for a single position based on a job-specific requirement does not, without more, establish that the employer regarded the applicant as substantially limited in the major life activity of working.


Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999)