Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
Ps are twin sisters, both of whom have severe myopia whose uncorrected visual acuity is 20/200 or worse in their right eye and 20/400 or worse in the left, but 'with the use of corrective lenses, each . . . has vision that is 20/20 or better.' Without corrective lenses, each 'effectively cannot see to conduct numerous activities such as driving a vehicle, watching television or shopping in public stores.' With corrective measures, such as glasses or contact lenses, both 'function identically to individuals without a similar impairment.' Ps applied to D for employment as commercial airline pilots. After submitting their applications for employment, both were invited to an interview and flight simulator tests. Both were told that a mistake had been made in inviting them to interview because they did not meet P's minimum vision requirement, which was uncorrected visual acuity of 20/100 or better. Their interviews were terminated, and neither was offered a pilot position. Ps filed a charge of disability discrimination under the ADA with the EEOC. After receiving a right to sue Ps filed suit alleging that D had discriminated against them 'on the basis of their disability, or because D regarded Ps as having a disability' in violation of the ADA. The District Court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Because their eyesight could be corrected, the court held that they were not actually substantially limited in any major life activity and thus had not stated a claim that they were disabled within the meaning of the ADA. The Tenth Circuit affirmed. Ps appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co