Opinion ID: 3017184
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Mitigating measures.

Text: In Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999), the Supreme Court held that an alleged disability under 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(A) must be evaluated in light of any mitigating measures.8 The Court wrote: A person whose physical or mental impairment is corrected by medication or other measures does not have an impairment that presently “substantially limits” a major life activity. To be sure, a person whose physical or mental impairment is corrected by mitigating measures still has an impairment, but if the impairment is corrected it does not “substantially limi[t]” a major life activity. 527 U.S. at 483. The district court ruled in the alternative that any ADHD/ADD impairment Collins may have is corrected with medication; thus, she is not disabled. Collins testified that her impairment is corrected when she timely takes her medication – Adderol and Ambien. She admitted that Adderol, which she takes for her ADHD/ADD, helps her “focus better,” but that it wears off after four hours. She also testified that she takes Ambien because she has trouble sleeping. She is careful not to take the Adderol too late in the day because it will keep her awake. In her brief, Collins claims that she has to take Ambien to counteract Adderol and, therefore “the medications actually make Collins 8 In Sutton, twin sisters, who sought to be airline pilots, were myopic, a sight impairment that is correctable with appropriate lenses. Because the impairment was corrected by either eyeglasses or contact lenses, the Court held that the sisters, who wore glasses, were not disabled under the ADA. 14 more impaired than the general population.” Finally, Collins testified that the Adderol doesn’t cure her impairment. Although we need not reach it, we believe that the district court’s alternative holding is correct. The test for determining the effect of mitigating measures is not whether the mitigating measures constitute a cure.