Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 96-1481

Decision Date26 November 1997
Docket NumberNo. 96-1481,96-1481
Citation1997 WL 732520,130 F.3d 893
Parties7 A.D. Cases 1167, 11 NDLR P 155 Karen SUTTON and Kimberly Hinton, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED AIR LINES, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit

Lisa Hogan (Patrick F. Carrigan and Beth A. Doherty Quinn with her on the brief) of Brownstein, Hyatt, Farber & Strickland, Denver, CO, for appellee.

Shawn D. Mitchell of Ireland, Stapleton, Pryor & Pascoe, Denver, CO, for appellants.

Before BRORBY, BARRETT, and McKAY Circuit Judges.

BARRETT, Senior Circuit Judge.

Karen Sutton and Kimberly Hinton (collectively referred to as Plaintiffs) appeal the district court's dismissal of their Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., discrimination claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc., No. 96-S-121, 1996 WL 588917 (D.Colo. Aug. 28, 1996). For the following reasons, we affirm.

Background

Plaintiffs, who are twin sisters, are currently commercial airline pilots for regional commuter airlines. However, they share a "life long goal to fly for a major air carrier." In 1992, Plaintiffs applied for commercial airline pilot positions with United Air Lines, Inc. (United) and were invited to interview in Denver, Colorado. At their interviews, Plaintiffs were informed that their uncorrected vision disqualified them from pilot positions with United, in that applicants for pilot positions must have uncorrected vision of 20/100 or better in each eye. Plaintiffs' uncorrected vision is 20/200 in the right eye and 20/400 in the left eye. 1 Plaintiffs' corrected vision is 20/20 in both eyes.

Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, filed pursuant to the ADA, alleged that United discriminated against them in the hiring process by rejecting their applications because of their "disability," their uncorrected vision, and/or because United regarded them as disabled. Plaintiffs asserted they are disabled under the ADA because their uncorrected vision substantially limits their major life activity of seeing. They averred their vision limitations are permanent and that without corrective measures, they would "effectively be unable to see" well enough to conduct normal everyday activities such as driving, watching television, or shopping. In addition, Plaintiffs alleged United regarded them as disabled in violation of the ADA because United's policy of requiring uncorrected vision of 20/100 or better blocks Plaintiffs from an entire class of employment, global airline pilots, without any objective evidence of job relatedness or safety.

On August 28, 1996, the district court granted United's motion to dismiss. The court concluded that Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint failed to state a claim under the ADA. The district court ruled that Plaintiffs were not disabled within the meaning of the ADA because their vision did not substantially limit a major life activity. The court stated that with corrective measures Plaintiffs' were "able to function identically to individuals without a similar impairment" and as such Plaintiffs were not substantially limited in the major life activity of seeing. Sutton, 1996 WL 588917, at * 3. The court reasoned that "[t]o adopt a definition of 'disabled' that would include persons whose vision is correctable by eyeglasses or contact lenses would result in an expansion of disability protection beyond the logical scope of the ADA. Millions of Americans suffer visual impairments no less serious that those of the Plaintiffs. Under such an expansive reading, the term 'disabled' would become a meaningless phrase, subverting the policies and purposes of the ADA and distorting the class the ADA was meant to protect." Id. at * 5. With respect to Plaintiffs' claim that United regarded them as disabled in violation of the ADA, the district court found no support for Plaintiffs' allegation that United regarded them as substantially impaired in the major life activity of seeing based on stereotype, myth, or unsubstantiated fears. Id. At best, the court reasoned that Plaintiffs established that United regarded them as "unable to satisfy the requirements of a particular passenger airline pilot position." Id. at * 6.

On appeal, Plaintiffs contend the district court erred in dismissing their Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim under the ADA. Plaintiffs assert that they alleged sufficient facts to establish that: (1) they were qualified applicants with a disability because they are substantially limited in the major life activity of seeing, and (2) United regarded them as having a substantially limiting impairment because its policy deprives them of employment throughout the global air carrier industry with no rational job-related basis. Plaintiffs argue that the district court erred in evaluating their physical impairment, their vision, with the benefit of corrective measures, in direct contradiction to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) Interpretive Guidance, which provides that the determination of whether an individual has a physical impairment and whether an individual is disabled within the meaning of the ADA must be done without regard to mitigating or corrective measures.

United responds that Plaintiffs' vision does not constitute a "physical or mental impairment" within the meaning of the ADA and that, even if it does, it does not "substantially limit" a major life activity. First, United contends that a minor, relatively common condition, such as Plaintiffs' nearsightedness and subsequent need for glasses, is not an impairment under the ADA. Second, United asserts that even if Plaintiffs are impaired within the meaning of the ADA, the EEOC's Interpretive Guidance, stating that disability determinations be made without regard to mitigating or corrective measures, is in direct conflict with the ADA's statutory requirement that a disability be a physical or mental impairment that "substantially limit[s] one or more of the major life activities of such individual." See 42 U.S.C. § 12101(2). United argues that to evaluate a disability without regard to mitigating measures would read out the ADA's statutory requirement that the impairment be "substantially" limiting. United reasons that if an individual can utilize corrective measures to mitigate the effects of an impairment to a degree such that there is no substantial limitation on a major life activity, then the individual is not disabled within the meaning of the ADA. Finally, United asserts that Plaintiffs can offer no substantive evidence it regarded them as anything other than as unable to meet the rational job-related safety requirements of the jobs they sought.

We review the district court's dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted de novo. Chemical Weapons Working Group, Inc. v. United States Dep't of the Army, 111 F.3d 1485, 1490 (10th Cir.1997). " 'We uphold a dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) only when it appears that the plaintiff[s] can prove no set of facts in support of the claims that would entitle [them] to relief, accepting all well- pleaded allegations of the complaint as true and construing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff[s].' " Yoder v. Honeywell Inc., 104 F.3d 1215, 1224 (10th Cir.) (quoting Fuller v. Norton, 86 F.3d 1016, 1020 (10th Cir.1996)), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 118 S.Ct. 55, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (1997). With this standard in mind, we turn to Plaintiffs' ADA claims.

Discussion

The ADA prohibits discrimination "against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment." 2 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). See Bolton v. Scrivner, Inc., 36 F.3d 939, 942 (10th Cir.1994) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a)), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1152, 115 S.Ct. 1104, 130 L.Ed.2d 1071 (1995). The ADA defines a "qualified individual with a disability" as "an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires." 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8). See White v. York Int'l Corp., 45 F.3d 357, 360 (10th Cir.1995) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8)).

To establish a claim under the ADA, Plaintiffs must demonstrate that: (1) they are disabled persons within the meaning of the ADA; (2) they are qualified, i.e., able to perform the essential functions of the job, with or without reasonable accommodation (which they must describe); and (3) United discriminated against them in its employment decision (the job application procedure and/or hiring process) because of their alleged disability. See Siemon v. AT&T Corp., 117 F.3d 1173, 1175 (10th Cir.1997); White, 45 F.3d at 360-61.

Taking all Plaintiffs' allegations in their Amended Complaint as true, as we must, Plaintiffs have established they are "qualified" for the position of commercial airline pilot and that United refused to continue their interviews (or hire them) due to their alleged disability, their uncorrected vision. Plaintiffs are both commercial airline pilots with regional commuter airlines; each holds an airline transport pilot license, which supersedes United's requirement for a commercial license; each has recorded thousands of hours of flight time as Pilot in Command; and each has a First-Class medical certificate from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Additionally, United sent each plaintiff a letter confirming that her uncorrected vision, each plaintiff's alleged disability, disqualified her from employment as a United pilot. Thus, at issue in this case, is whether Plaintiffs' vision qualifies them as "individuals with a disability" within the meaning of the ADA.

The ADA defines a "disability" as "(A) a physical or mental...

To continue reading

Request your trial
136 cases
  • Cole v. Uni-Marts, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of New York
    • February 16, 2000
    ... ... UNI-MARTS, INC., Defendant ... No. 98-CV-148A ... United States District Court, W.D. New York ... February 16, 2000 ... 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a); see Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 119 S.Ct. 2139, 2144, 144 ... ...
  • Viernes v. DNF Assocs., LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii
    • January 27, 2022
  • Southern Ute Indian Tribe v. Amoco Production Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • July 20, 1998
    ... ... Colorado; Amax Oil & Gas, Inc.; Bowen/Edwards Associates, ... Inc.; Fuel Resources ... United States Department of the Interior; Department of ... 223, 228, 113 S.Ct. 2050, 124 L.Ed.2d 138 (1993); Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 130 F.3d 893, 898 (10th ... ...
  • Tran v. Standard Motor Products, Inc., 97-2188-JWL.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Kansas
    • May 29, 1998
    ... ... STANDARD MOTOR PRODUCTS, INC.; International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW); ... See Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 130 F.3d 893, 899 n. 3 (10th Cir.1997) ("It is ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 books & journal articles
  • Is HIV a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act: unanswered questions after Bragdon v. Abbott.
    • United States
    • Journal of Law and Health Vol. 14 No. 2, June 1999
    • June 22, 1999
    ...Murphy v. United Parcel Service, 141 F.3d 1185 (10th Cir. 1998), cert. granted 119 S. Ct. 790 (1999); Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 130 F.3d 893 (10th Cir. 1997), cert. granted 119 S. Ct. 790 (1999); Albertsons, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, 143 F.3d 1228 (9th Cir. 1998), cert. granted 119 S. Ct......
  • Mandatory Arbitration of Employment Disputes
    • United States
    • Kansas Bar Association KBA Bar Journal No. 67-04, April 1998
    • Invalid date
    ...at 28. [FN186]. EEOC Policy Statement, EEOC Compliance Manual (CCH) ¶ 2068, p. 2088. [FN187]. See, e.g., Sutton v. United Airlines Inc. 130 F.3d 893 (10th Cir. 1997) (rejecting EEOC's Interpretive Guidance where inconsistent with statutory language); Moore v. City of Overland Park, 950 F. S......
  • Evaluating the interplay among FMLA, ADA and workers' comp statutes isn't child's play.
    • United States
    • Defense Counsel Journal Vol. 66 No. 1, January 1999
    • January 1, 1999
    ...(Summer 1998). (29.) 124 F.3d 760, 763 (6th Cir. 1997), modified, 7 A.D. Cases (BNA) 1268 (1997). (30.) Sutton v. United Air Lines Inc., 130 F.3d 893 (10th Cir. 1997) (vision); Moore v. City of Overland Park, 950 F.Supp. 1081 (D. Kan. 1996) (insulin dependent diabetic); Murphy v. United Par......
  • The Adaaa: Congress Breathes New Life Into the Americans With Disabilities Act
    • United States
    • Kansas Bar Association KBA Bar Journal No. 81-3, March 2012
    • Invalid date
    ...v. Bd. of County Commrs, 483 F.3d 1086, 1090 (10th Cir. 2007). [16] Prior to the Tenth Circuit's decision in Sutton v. United Air Lines, 130 F.3d 893, all of the other circuits that had heard such cases had ruled that mitigation was not to be taken into account when examining the existence ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT