Twins Karen Sutton and Kimberly Hinton suffered from severe myopia. Their uncorrected visual acuity was 20/200, but with corrective lenses, both were able to function normally. They applied to United Air Lines to be commercial airline pilots, but were rejected by the company due to their uncorrected vision being worse than 20/100. The twins then filed suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The District Court dismissed the complaint, partially holding that the plaintiffs could not be considered “disabled” because their impairment could be fully corrected. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed. The plaintiffs then appealed to the Supreme Court. The American Civil Liberties Union also filed an amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs.
This Supreme Court case (along with two companion cases, Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc. and Albertsons, Inc. v. Kirkingburg) had a profound impact on the definition of “disability” under the ADA. The Court ruled that an individual’s impairment must be assessed in their mitigated state when determining if it substantially limits a major life activity. For example, if a person’s poor vision was corrected by eyeglasses, they might not be considered “disabled” under the ADA. This narrow interpretation led to many ADA claims being dismissed at the outset and was a major catalyst for the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA), which explicitly overturned this aspect of the rulings to broaden the definition of disability.