-Twin sisters, each suffered from severe myopia, which was correctable with appropriate lenses. -They both applied for...

Fantastic news! We've Found the answer you've been seeking!

Question:

-Twin sisters, each suffered from severe myopia, which was correctable with appropriate lenses.

-They both applied for positions as pilots with the airline (D).
-The applicants contended that the airline's refusal to hire them as pilots because of their uncorrected visual acuity was based upon their disability and was impermissible discrimination under the ADA.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY:
-The district court dismissed the applicants' complaint about failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and the appeals court affirmed the decision.

-The Court affirmed the decision below because a "disability" under the ADA had to be determined with regard to the corrective measures that were available and a person whose physical or mental impairment was corrected by medication or other measures did not have an impairment that substantially limited a major life activity.

OUTCOME:
-The Court affirmed the decision upholding the trial court's dismissal of the applicants' claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act because the applicants were not disabled within the meaning of the statute.

1. Before reviewing this case Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc Before reviewing this case, would you have considered someone disabled if they had an impairment that could be relieved completely through medication, such that they functioned exactly as a non-impaired person would function?

2. Would your answer to the above question be the same if the impaired person had lost a limb and now used a prosthetic device? Would that individual be considered disabled, according to your gut instinct? Is that person to be considered any differently in terms of employment than say someone with attention deficit disorder who can be completely managed through medication?

3. Assuming it is appropriate for the court to consider side effects of such corrective measures, as mentioned in the case how do you propose the court should balance the side effects versus the correction? In other words what if the sisters in the above case hated wearing glasses because they didn't like how they looked or because they claimed they were uncomfortable or because they claimed they got headaches from the glasses? Would you consider any or all of these effects in determining whether the sister's disabilities could be corrected and therefore whether they were impaired?