Title: Padilla v. City of Topeka
Citation: 238 Kan. 218, 708 P.2d 543
Docket Number: 57,802
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: October 25, 1985

238 Kan. 218 (1985)
708 P.2d 543
FRANK PADILLA, Appellee,
v.
CITY OF TOPEKA, Appellant.
No. 57,802

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed October 25, 1985.
Richard E. Jones, deputy city attorney, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellant.
Gary H. Hanson, of Stumbo &amp; Stumbo, of Topeka, argued the cause and was on the brief for appellee.
Brandon L. Myers, staff attorney, was on the amicus curiae brief for the Kansas Commission on Civil Rights.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
McFARLAND, J.:
Plaintiff Frank Padilla brings this action against defendant City of Topeka alleging the City wrongfully refused to hire him as a Topeka police officer. Mr. Padilla was not hired because his uncorrected vision was below the standards for new recruits set by the Topeka Police Department. Plaintiff contends the City's refusal to hire him violated: (1) his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection; and (2) federal, state and municipal laws relative to the hiring of handicapped persons. The trial court generally held favorably to the plaintiff on all points, invalidated the visual acuity requirement, ordered the plaintiff be considered a qualified applicant, and allowed attorney fees to plaintiff. The defendant City appeals from all adverse determinations.
The facts of the case are mainly uncontroverted and may be summarized as follows. In 1979 plaintiff applied for the position of police officer with the City of Topeka. He passed all of the tests except the physical standard for uncorrected visual acuity which required no less than 20/50 for each eye.
Minimum physical standards for new Topeka police officers and firefighters were developed in 1978 by Dr. Ray D. Baker, a physician, who is the director of the Topeka-Shawnee County Health Department. In formulating the Topeka standards, Dr. Baker studied the standards utilized by several major police and highway patrol departments outside of the State of Kansas. Additionally, Dr. Baker conferred with the Topeka Police Chief as to the type of adverse working conditions police officers could encounter. The visual acuity standard recommended by Dr. Baker and adopted by the Topeka Fire and Police Civil Service Commission required not less than 20/50 uncorrected vision in each eye  correctable to 20/20 in each eye.
Plaintiff was working as a corporal with the Ottawa (Kansas) Department of Public Safety at all times relevant. He wears *220 glasses which correct his vision to 20/20. His myopia has not caused him any difficulty in any aspect of his life, including his police position in Ottawa. He does not believe his myopia limits or restricts his activities in any way. Plaintiff's eyes test 20/100 in the left eye, 20/70 in the right eye, and 20/50 binocular (both eyes functioning as opposed to monocular testing). By virtue of the nature of the monocular and binocular testing, it would seem illogical that the binocular test figure could be better than the vision in a single eye, but such was the evidence and we must accept it as correct.
At trial of the action herein, plaintiff testified and called as his only witnesses two fellow officers from Ottawa who testified plaintiff had satisfactorily performed all of his duties in Ottawa. Defendant City called Dr. Baker, who testified as to how the study of physical standards for police officers was developed, and Robert Weinkauf, Topeka Chief of Police, who testified as to the extreme variety of potentially dangerous conditions which may confront a police officer and the need for good vision without reliance on removable vision corrective devices. Matthew B. Works, past secretary with the Topeka Fire and Police Civil Service Commission, testified as to the civil service board's adoption of standards for new Topeka police officers. Finally, Dr. James E. Sheedy, an optometrist and assistant professor at the University of California, School of Optometry, in Berkeley, testified as an expert on the need for standards for minimum uncorrected vision in police officers. He personally recommended more stringent standards than those before us. Dr. Sheedy, on cross-examination, testified that the new extended wear contact lenses might reduce some of the problems associated with glasses and regular contact lenses (being lost during scuffles, etc.). It was agreed some 55 Topeka officers on the force prior to adoption of the standards do not meet the visual acuity standards. However, it was also agreed no officers have been hired since adoption of the standards who did not meet the visual acuity standard.
The first issue is whether defendant deprived plaintiff of liberty or property without due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
As stated in Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 33 L. Ed. 2d 548, 92 S. Ct. 2701 (1972):
Additionally:
In Stoldt v. City of Toronto, 234 Kan. 957, 678 P.2d 153 (1984), we held that a night watchman fired by the City of Toronto had no property interest in his job either by statute or contract, and, hence, his termination did not violate his right to due process.
It follows, a fortiori, that there is no property interest in obtaining municipal employment; neither is a liberty interest affected.
We hold plaintiff's constitutional right to due process was not violated herein.
The second issue is whether defendant denied plaintiff equal protection of the law contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Plaintiff was not hired by virtue of having failed the visual acuity standard. Is this a violation of his constitutional right to equal protection? We believe not. In analyzing denial of equal protection issues, the first matter of determination is whether the strict scrutiny standard or rational-basis standard is to be applied. Massachusetts Bd. of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307, 311-12, 49 L. Ed. 2d 520, 96 S. Ct. 2562 (1976), involved an equal protection challenge to a Massachusetts law requiring retirement of highway patrol officers at age 50. In holding that the mandatory retirement provision did not violate the equal protection clause, the United States Supreme Court reasoned as follows:
Obviously, visual acuity of its police officers is a reasonable concern of the City of Topeka. Police officers are not able to call a "time out" in emergencies while they look for their glasses or lost contact lenses. Their jobs often lead them into physical encounters with rowdy persons where such mishaps may occur. No one likes to contemplate a police officer trying to determine, before he fires, which of two blurry shapes is the felon and which is the hostage or a fellow officer. The visual acuity standard for new recruits was relatively new to the Topeka Police Department when this case arose. As a result, a number of officers already on the force could not meet it if called upon to do so. It would be poor public policy to hold that a police department cannot upgrade its officers by imposing standards without terminating all existing officers who could not meet the new standards. Vision seldom improves with age. Time and natural attrition should ultimately reduce the number of myopic officers on the force. The 55 officers not meeting the standard are not differentiated between near and farsighted individuals, so we do not know how many are myopic. Logically, farsightedness presents less of a problem for officers in emergency situations than does myopia.
Applying the appropriate rational-basis standard, we conclude the minimum visual acuity standard herein is rationally related to the City's objective and plaintiff has not been denied equal protection of the laws.
The third issue is whether the trial court erred in holding the defendant City's failure to hire plaintiff was a violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 (1982) et seq.
29 U.S.C. § 794 (1982) prohibits discrimination against "otherwise qualified handicapped" individuals as defined in § 29 U.S.C. 706(7) (1982), which states:
The threshold question is, of course, whether plaintiff was a handicapped person within the definition of the above statute. An illuminating case on this issue is Jasany v. United States Postal Service, 755 F.2d 1244 (6th Cir.1985). Jasany was a postal worker who was hired to operate a mail sorting machine. He has a mild case of strabismus (crossed eyes) which had never previously limited any of his activities. However, the condition precluded work on the mail sorting machine. Jasany was terminated for inability to perform the work for which he was hired and brought this action alleging violation of the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973. In denying relief under the Act, the Sixth Circuit reasoned:
The whole thrust of plaintiff's evidence in the case before us was that he was not a handicapped person. He (and fellow officers) testified he was able to perform his duties as an Ottawa safety officer (encompassing police and fire department duties). With corrective lenses, plaintiff's vision is 20/20. Plaintiff has worn glasses since his grade school days and testified to no problems or limitations in his activities. The rationale expressed in Jasany is applicable to the case before us. Plaintiff has a visual impairment, but he has failed to meet the threshold requirement that he is a handicapped person within the definition contained in 29 U.S.C. § 706(7)(B)(i). There is simply no evidence plaintiff has a "physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of such person's major life activities." The trial court erred in holding the Rehabilitation Act was applicable herein and in holding plaintiff has been discriminated against under said Act.
The fourth issue is whether the trial court erred in holding the defendant City's failure to hire plaintiff was a violation of the Kansas Act Against Discrimination, K.S.A. 44-1001 et seq.
The pertinent statutory provisions are as follows:
"44-1002. Definitions. When used in this act:
....
....
....
As in the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973, previously discussed, where a person is claiming discrimination under K.S.A. 44-1001 et seq., on the basis of being physically handicapped, he must satisfy the threshold requirement that he is a person with a physical handicap as defined by K.S.A. 44-1002(j).
*228 Although phrased differently in the federal and state legislation, the basic concept is similar. A physical impairment does not automatically equate to a handicap under either act  less than perfect is not the definition of handicap under either statute. The handicap must be a substantial disability unrelated to the ability to engage in the particular job or activity (K.S.A. 44-1002[j]) or a physical impairment which substantially limits one or more of such person's major life activities. 29 U.S.C. § 706(7)(B)(i).
Myopia corrected to 20/20 vision by means of corrective lenses is not a substantial disability within the definition of physical handicap contained in K.S.A. 44-1002(j). Here again, it should be noted there was no evidence plaintiff's myopia had ever limited or restricted his activities. Indeed, plaintiff introduced testimony of his ability to perform the Ottawa Public Safety Officer duties. Plaintiff's evidence, in fact, was intended to establish that his physical impairment did not constitute a handicap.
We conclude the trial court erred in holding plaintiff had a physical handicap as defined by K.S.A. 44-1002(j) and that the defendant City violated the Kansas Act Against Discrimination (K.S.A. 44-1001 et seq.) in failing to hire plaintiff as a police officer.
The fifth issue is whether the trial court erred in holding the defendant City's failure to hire plaintiff was in violation of the Code of the City of Topeka § 22-99 (1985).
The ordinance provides:
"Physical handicap" is not defined in the ordinance. The parties agree that the term should be construed and interpreted similarly to the term "handicapped person" as defined in the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (they disagree on what the correct interpretation of the federal statute is). We have, in deciding an earlier issue in this opinion, held that plaintiff's visual impairment correctable by glasses or contact lenses does not constitute a physical handicap within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 706 (7)(B)(i). We see no valid basis for interpreting the *229 term "physical handicap" in the ordinance to be broader in scope than the definition thereof in 29 U.S.C. § 706(7)(B)(i) or in K.S.A. 44-1002(j).
We conclude plaintiff did not have a physical handicap within the scope of the Code of the City of Topeka § 22-99, and the trial court erred in holding otherwise.
The final issue is the propriety of allowing attorney fees to plaintiff under authority of 29 U.S.C. § 794a(b) (1982). The trial court allowed attorney fees with the amount thereof to be determined at a later date. Ultimately, the matter of the amount of attorney fees was left for determination by the appellate court. The federal statute (29 U.S.C. § 794a[b]) provides a court in its discretion may allow the prevailing party reasonable attorney fees. As plaintiff did not prevail on appeal, the issue is now moot.
The judgment is reversed.
LOCKETT, J., concurring.