James C. Hetlage is a member of Lashly & Baer and serves as the Co-Chair of the Firm's Litigation Practice Group. He engages primarily in employment law and employment discrimination litigation. Mr. Hetlage has presented seminars and in-service training on sexual harassment and other employment topics.

In 1999, the United States Supreme Court provided significant guidance regarding disability determinations under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Court announced that employers might consider the effect of medication and mitigating measures when determining whether an employee or applicant has a disability pursuant to the ADA. The Supreme Court also addressed the relationship between an individual's claims under the ADA and claims for disability benefits under the Social Security Act.

Title I of the ADA prohibits an employer with 15 or more employees from discriminating against a qualified individual because of a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity. An employee or applicant must demonstrate that the individual can perform the essential functions of the job either with or without reasonable accommodation.

The United States Supreme Court concluded that the determination of disability under the ADA should be made with reference to measures that mitigate the individual's impairment. The Court rejected interpretive guidelines promulgated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The Court concluded in one case that two sisters who had applied for jobs as commercial pilots, but had been denied employment because they did not meet the established vision standard, were not actually disabled under the ADA despite having uncorrected vision of 20/200, because with corrective lenses their vision was 20/20 or better and the claimants could not demonstrate that they were in fact substantially limited in one or more major life activity.

The Court concluded in two other cases that a mechanic who had high blood pressure and was terminated was not actually disabled because he controlled his condition through medication, and that a truck driver with monocular vision was properly terminated because he did not meet the Department of Transportation vision standards for commercial truck drivers. In each case, the employee could not demonstrate that his or her impairment substantially limited a major life activity.

The Court emphasized that employers should consider each ADA disability claim on an individual basis and determine whether the employee or applicant is actually limited in a major life activity. The EEOC regulations define major life activities as "caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning and working." Employers should not speculate about a person's condition and not make disability determinations based on general information about how an uncorrected impairment usually affects individuals.

In an unrelated case, the Supreme Court held that receipt of social security disability benefits does not automatically bar a recipient from pursuing an ADA claim. This is significant since the social security disability benefits application requires a certification that an applicant is unable to perform the job and is unable to engage in gainful employment. Whereas, an individual pursuing a disability discrimination claim under the ADA must prove that the individual can perform the essential functions of the job either with or without accommodations.

To resolve the apparent conflict, the Court focused on the different purposes of the two laws. The Social Security Act provides monetary benefits to every insured individual who "is under a disability." The ADA seeks to eliminate unwarranted discrimination against disabled individuals. The Court noted that since the representations made on the social security disability benefits application do not contemplate performance of one's job with reasonable accommodations, the pursuit of social security disability benefits should not absolutely bar an individual from pursuing a claim under the ADA. The Court announced that each case should be considered on its unique facts and that the apparent conflict between the representations made on the social security disability benefits application and the requirement that a claimant prove his or her ability to perform the essential functions of the job must be addressed on a case by case basis.