Americans with Disabilities Act - Essay Example

Sutton and Hinton, twin sisters, petitioned the Supreme Court in an employment discrimination case by United Airlines Incorporation. The sisters suffered from severe myopia. Both sisters had less than 20/200 and 20/400 uncorrected visual acuity in the right and left eyes respectively. However, they used corrective lenses to increase the level of visual acuity. The corrective lenses improved their sight to a level of 20/20 visual acuity. The sisters responded to an advertisement requiring interested individuals to apply as commercial airline pilots.

The sisters satisfied all qualifications, but the minimum visual requirement; 20/100 uncorrected visual acuity. The interviewing panel terminated both applications. The sisters filed a petition against the company for alleged disability discrimination after receiving the right to sue letter from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Justice O’Connor concluded that the two sisters did not fall under the definition of “disability” as stipulated in ADA. Their vision was correctable by using lenses, hence, were not limited to performing a major life activity.

Discussion
ADA applies in this case in relation to the definition of “disability.” According to ADA, disability is the physical or mental limitation to perform a major life activity. The definition fails to include individuals with a correctable disability. Such is evident in the case because the twin sisters did not have significant limiting impairment. The case commences a major debate for ADA to be clear about disabled individuals who can correct their disabilities. The case begs to leave the question as to whether disabled individuals who can correct their disabilities are protected against employment discrimination by ADA.
Group Deliverable

In actual practice, ADA is limited in relation to its definition of “disability.” Though the Act protects workers with disabilities against employer discrimination, it fails to include the masses with correctable disabilities. These are individuals who can correct their disabilities to perform major life activities.

The Act aims to protect individuals with a non-correctable disability from employer discrimination. Such individuals are protected because they cannot perform major life activities. However, individuals with correctable disabilities are not substantially limited to performing major life activities, hence; ADA does not include such in its classification of disabled people who require protection against employment discrimination. For example, Justice O’Connor ruled that the sisters were not disabled because they employed mitigating measures to their visual impairment.

ADA acts as an inhibitor to the rights of individuals with a correctable disability to sue an employer for discrimination. For example, the Supreme Court held that the petitioners were not substantially limited to performing major life activities. The definition of “disabled” under ADA does not include individuals with a correctable disability. According to the Supreme Court, the petitioners failed to state a claim that would grant their relief. ADA fails to consider such individuals making it difficult for them to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Read More