Landmark U.S. Supreme Ct. ADA Cases: @ LevyMD

Recent US Supreme Ct. Decisions:

FOUR U.S. SUPREME COURT ADA CASES:

1. Case Name (see above): OLMSTEAD v. L. C. (98-536)
Date, Location, Cite: (1999) U.S. Supreme Court, 138 F.3d 893, affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.

On June 22, 1999, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Olmstead v. L.C., holding that the unnecessary segregation of individuals with disabilities may constitute discrimination based on disability.

2. Case name:SUTTON et al. v. UNITED AIR LINES, INC.

High Court Limits Who Is Protected by Disability Law
(June 23. 1999) Resolving one of the most pressing questions of federal disability law, the Court ruled people with physical impairments who can function normally when they wear their glasses or take their medicine generally cannot be considered disabled (from The New York Times)

Cite, Date, Location,: No. 97-1943 United States Supreme Court, (1999),

Argued April 28, 1999--Decided June 22, 1999

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA or Act), 104 Stat. 328, 42 U. S. C. §12101 et seq., prohibits certain employers from discriminating against individuals on the basis of their disabilities. See §12112(a). Petitioners challenge the dismissal of their ADA action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We conclude that the complaint was properly dismissed. In reaching that result, we hold 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. In addition, we hold that petitioners failed to allege properly that respondent "regarded" them as having a disability within the meaning of the ADA

3. Case Name: MURPHY v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.

Cite, Date, Location: No. 97-1992. Argued April 27, 1999--Decided June 22, 1999, U.S.Supreme Court

Respondent United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS), dismissed petitioner Vaughn L. Murphy from his job as a UPS mechanic because of his high blood pressure. Petitioner filed suit under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA or Act), 104 Stat. 328, 42 U. S. C. §12101 et seq., in Federal District Court. The District Court granted summary judgment to respondent, and the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed. We must decide whether the Court of Appeals correctly considered petitioner in his medicated state when it held that petitioner's impairment does not "substantially limi[t]" one or more of his major life activities and whether it correctly determined that petitioner is not "regarded as disabled." See §12102(2). In light of our decision in Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., ante, p. ____, we conclude that the Court of Appeals' resolution of both issues was correct.

4. Case Name: ALBERTSONS, INC. v. KIRKINGBURG

Cite, Date, Location: No. 98-591. Argued April 28, 1999--Decided June 22, 1999, United States Supreme Court

The question posed is whether, under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 104 Stat. 327, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §12101 et seq. (1994 ed. and Supp. III), an employer who requires as a job qualification that an employee meet an otherwise applicable federal safety regulation must justify enforcing the regulation solely because its standard may be waived in an individual case. We answer no

Pending U.S. Supreme Court ADA Case

Docket: Wednesday, October 11

UNIV. OF AL BOARD OF TRUSTEES v. GARRETT
No. 99-1240

Subject:
Eleventh Amendment, Sovereign Immunity, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Rehabilitation Act, Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)

Question:
Do Title I and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., exceed Congress's enforcement authority under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Decisions:
U.S. Court of Appeals - 11th Circuit, Filed: October 26, 1999
U.S. Court of Appeals - 11th Circuit, Filed: November 5, 1999

Resources: