Document: 527 U.S. 555119 S.Ct. 2162144 L.Ed.2d 518 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 98-591 ALBERTSONS, INC., Petitioner v. HALLIE KIRKINGBURG ON WRIT CERTIORARI TO APPEALS FOR NINTH CIRCUIT [June 22, 1999] Justice Souter delivered the opinion of Court.* 1 The question posed is whether, under Americans with Disabilities Act 1990, 104 Stat. 327, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (1994 ed. and Supp. III), an employer who requires a job qualification that employee meet otherwise applicable federal safety regulation must justify enforcing solely because its standard may be waived in individual case. We answer no. 2 * In August petitioner, Albertsons, Inc., grocery-store chain supermarkets several States, hired respondent, Hallie Kirkingburg, truckdriver based at Portland, Oregon, warehouse. Kirkingburg had more than decade's driving experience performed well when Albertsons' transportation manager took him on road test. 3 Before starting work, was examined to see if he met vision standards for commercial truckdrivers. 143 F.3d 1228, 1230-1231 (CA9 1998). For many decades Department Transportation or predecessors has been responsible devising these individuals drive vehicles interstate commerce.1 Since 1971, basic required corrected distant visual acuity least 20/40 each eye binocular 20/40. See 35 Fed. Reg. 6458, 6463 (1970); 57 6793, 6794 (1992); 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) (1998).2 however, suffers from amblyopia, uncorrectable condition leaves 20/200 his left monocular effect.3 Despite Kirkingburg's weak eye, doctor erroneously certified DOT's standard, Albertsons him.4 4 December 1991, injured himself leave absence. returning work November 1992, went further physical by company. This time, examining physician correctly assessed explained eyesight did not DOT standards. physician, nurse, told order legally qualified drive, would have obtain waiver DOT. F.3d, 1230; App. 284-285. alluding scheme begun July 1992 giving certification applicants deficient three years recent vehicle without license suspension revocation, involvement reportable accident which applicant cited moving violation, conviction certain driving-related offenses, citation serious traffic violations, two convictions any other violations. A agree checked annually deterioration, report information about Federal Highway Administration, agency within overseeing motor carrier regulations. 31458, 31460-61 (1992).5 applied waiver, but could fired truckdriver.6 early 1993, after received refused rehire him. 1231. 5 sued claiming firing violated ADA.7 moved summary judgment ground "not 'otherwise qualified' perform truck driver reasonable accommodation." 39-40; id., 119. District Court granted motion, ruling reasonably concluded accommodation not, admitted, court held time get program "a flawed experiment altered requirements." Id., 120. 6 divided panel Ninth Circuit reversed. addition pressing claim qualified, first appeal position it entitled disability meaning Act. 182-185. Appeals considered rejected new argument, concluding presented "uncontroverted evidence" effectively monocular, demonstrated "the manner sees differs significantly most people see." 1232. That difference manner, held, sufficient establish disability. Ibid. 7 then addressed upon judgment, acknowledging consistently truckdrivers them (and indeed not). recognized ADA allowed job-related prerequisite hiring rely Government regulations basis setting standard. use compliance justification requirement program, disregarded, lawful legitimate part regulatory scheme." 1236. conceded free set different mandated DOT, ADA, independent necessary prevent " 'a direct threat health workplace.' (quoting 12113(b)). Although suggested might able make such showing remand, 1236, ultimately company interpreting rejection waivers flying face already embodied decision grant them, 1237. 8 Judge Rymer dissented. She contended properly relied refusing accept because, rest rule force law," merely way gathering data deciding whether refashion still-applicable 1239. II 9 Though we need speak issue resolve this case, falls certiorari,8 525 ___ (1999), think worthwhile address briefly correct missteps made discussion matter. Under ADA: 10 "The term 'disability' means, respect individual- 11 "(A) mental impairment substantially limits one major life activities individual; 12 "(B) record impairment; 13 "(C) being regarded having impairment." 12102(2). 14 are concerned only definition.9 There no dispute either amblyopia Act, 29 1630.2(h)(1) (1998) (defining "physical impairment" "[a]ny physiological disorder, ... affecting following body systems: special sense organs"), seeing activities, §1630.2(i) (giving example activity).10 alone "substantially limits" seeing. 15 affirmative answer, issued Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, defining "[s]ignificantly restrict[s] condition, duration can particular activity compared average person general population same activity." §1630.2(j)(ii). [Kirkingburg] see" "[t]o put simplest terms [he] using eye; two." majority also Eighth decision, whose holding characterized similar terms: "It enough warrant finding plaintiff out eye: different." (characterizing Doane Omaha, 115 624, 627-628 (1997)).11 16 But respects too quick find First, although EEOC definition "significant restrict[ion]" individual's performing activity, appeared willing settle mere difference. By transforming restriction" into "difference," undercut fundamental statutory impairments causing "substantial limitat[ions]" individuals' ability constitute disabilities. While "addresses substantial limitations utter inabilities," Bragdon Abbott, 524 641 (1998), concerns itself fact substantial. 17 Second, suggest gauging take account compensate impairment. acknowledged "brain developed subconscious mechanisms coping [his] thus compensates disability." treating monocularity embracing Doane, apparently adopted view learned making adjustments sensed depth perceived peripheral objects," 1232, irrelevant determination See, e.g., Sutton United Air Lines, 130 893, 901, n. (CA10 1997) standing proposition mitigating measures should disregarded assessing disability); Union Pacific R. Co., F. 2d 1135, 1137 (Idaho 1998) (same). just Airlines, ante, (slip op., 8), taken judging possesses principled distinguishing between undertaken artificial aids, like medications devices, undertaken, consciously body's own systems. 18 Finally, perhaps significantly, pay much heed obligation determine existence disabilities case-by-case basis. expresses mandate clearly "disability" "with individual," 12102(2), impact "such §12102(2)(A). Sutton, ___; 9); cf. pt. 1630, App., §1630.2(j) ("The necessarily name diagnosis has, rather effect individual"); ibid. limited case basis"). some invariably cause limitation Bragdon, supra, 642 (declining HIV infection per se disability), cannot say does. category, understand it, embrace group members vary degree weaker age they suffered their loss, extent compensating techniques, ultimate scope restrictions abilities. These variables stuff rule. inevitably leads loss horizontal field perception,12 consequences mentioned, identify nor aware evidence specifying restrictions. 19 onerous burden trying show disabled. On contrary, our brief examination medical literature us sharing Government's "ordinarily" will Act's disability, Brief States al. Amici Curiae 11, suppose defendant companies often contest issue. simply hold individuals, others protection, prove offering experience, perception field, III 20 primary contention even disabled, "qualified" 12112(a), insisted minimum level forth Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, (1998). If enforce "essential functio[n] employment position," 12111(8), end concededly satisfy it.13 21 Title I employers "qualification screen tend deny benefit disability," so long "job-related consistent business necessity, performance accomplished ." 12113(a). §12112(b)(6) discrimination include "using unless shown necessity").14 22 argue provisions do authorize follow facially subject enquiry beyond determining meets yes insist compliance, say, reference waivable necessity," §12112(b)(6), consideration capabilities fairly competing interests wholly justifiable qualification. 23 extends argument section statute, blush appears permissive provision employer's public's benefit. An impose shall pose workplace," §12113(b), "direct threat" defined significant risk others, eliminated accommodation," §12111(3); 1630.2(r) urges read subsections (a) (b) together mean however specific, tending disabilities, application ADA's criterion, 22. criterion ordinarily "an individualized assessment present safely essential functions job," "based objective evidence," U.S., 649 (citing School Bd. Nassau Cty. Arline, 480 273, 288 (1987)); (assessment "shall relies current knowledge and/or best available evidence").15 24 answers essentially assuming proposed sound reading statute run cases, run. It crucial here insisting devising, possible questions genuine appropriateness whom reasonable. applying binding §391.11: permit drive," by, among things, meeting §391.41. validity unchallenged, law, contain qualifying language determinations. 25 looked further, there unconditional consequent right so. This, indeed, understanding Congress enacted infra, 17-18.16 more: program. 26 "precludes [employers] declaring persons determined capable incapable virtue "will avoid [ADA's] strictures threat," assumed treated par regulation, modified waiver. Cf. Conroy Aniskoff, 507 511, 515 (1993) (noting 'cardinal whole' King St. Vincent's Hospital, 502 215, 221 (1991))). reading, substantive element regime, easily fit 12113(a) consider accommodation. resting once obtained, probably provide opportunity whenever possible. analysis, Court's error. 27 reasoning underlying Appeals's unsound, error establishing modifying content disentitled it. To sure, immediately apparent. starts authorizing stood began presume ought accorded equal significance, matter law deemed Compare §2505(a)(3) (1988 ed.) ("Such ensure operators adequate enable operate safely"),17 §2505(f) ("After notice comment, Secretary waive, whole part, class determines contrary public interest safe operation vehicles").18 Safe supposed touchstone instance. 28 As former provision,19 determinations selected were needed predicates action. Starting 1937, agencies authorized regulate increasingly rigorous standards, culminating one, remained unchanged since became effective 1971.20 When FHWA found "[a]ccident reduction effects organic disorders, emotional impairments, good drivers important factors prevention," 34 9080, 9081 (1969) (Notice Proposed Rule Making); reflect agency's conclusion "drivers modern, complex vehicles" "withstand increased demands occupation now imposes." 6458 (1970). Given findings "in light discussions Administration's advisers," 6459, commerce, "area [in which] risks involved known dictate utmost caution." 17419. reasons, expect governing comparable (albeit exceptional cases), grounded facts indicating jeopardized. course, administrative scheme, noted already. impetus develop concern existing demanding required. rules limit law. Senate Labor Human Resources Committee Report stated currently [DOT drivers] title legislation." S. Rep. 101-116, pp. 27-28 House Committees shared understanding, H. 101-485, 2, p. (1990) (House Education Report); 3, Judiciary Report). Accordingly, asked [to] undertake thorough review" technological aids "any changes" enactment ADA. 27-28; 57; (expressing expectation "review requirements valid Act"). instituted stating final disposition "consistent vehicles," required, 31460 (1992). 30 And yet, despite background, modify failed formal sense, turning decisions records, sight requirements. clear evidentiary pre-existing lowered safety. When, published "[a]dvance rulemaking" requesting comments "on need, any, amend relating standard," candidly means obtaining bearing justifiability revising place, 10295. "object relation rulemaking exploring feasibility relaxing absolute 391 favor standard." proposed, therefore, change indication believe anything lenient After bumpy stretch procedure, Advocates Auto FHWA, 1288, 1290 (CADC 1994), FHWA's again gather going wisdom changing conduct study comparing experienced, visually control experienced empirical evaluate relationships specific deficiencies [commercial vehicles]. context actual performance, and, necessary, safe, fair, rationally related latest highway technology." 31458 all planning give collect information, commissioned done 'illuminat[e] lack link disorders safety,' 'failed foundation propose satisfactory vehicles] commerce,' Safety, 1293 Reg., 31458). 31 sum, plain final, factual conducive purport way. safety, intended, hypothesis confirmation refutation practice reconsidering standards.21 32 Nothing participate experiment. question, then, require defend decline Is reasonable, is, requiring shoulder exclude chooses abide applicable, unamended willingness waive experimentally inappropriate? yes, de novo itself. reinvent wheel specifications. what more, contemporary hard come by. credible (before program) choosing sole experimental burdened regulation's according terms. 33 accordingly ordered. NOTES *. Stevens Breyer join Parts opinion. 36 1. §204(a), 546; §6(e)(6)(C), 80 939-940; 1.4(c)(9) (1968); 1984 §206, 98 2835, 31136(a)(3); 1.48(aa) 37 2. Visual number components commonly refers presence distinguish identifying feature visible target." G. von Noorden, Binocular Vision Ocular Motility 114 (4th 1990). Herman Snellen Dutch ophthalmologist who, 1862, devised familiar letter chart still used measure acuity. figure score distance viewer target, typically feet. second corresponds normal letters size C. Snyder, Our Ophthalmic Heritage 97-99 (1967); D. Vaughan, T. Asburg, & P. Riordan-Eva, General Ophthalmology (15th 1999). 38 3. "Amblyopia," derived Greek roots dull vision, "poor caused abnormal development secondary stimulation." K. Wright al., Pediatric Strabismus 126 (1995); 126-131; Von 208-245. 39 4. Several months later, recertified erroneously. Both times measured requirement. 1230, 1998); 49-50, 297-298, 360-361. 40 5. February advance review 6793. Shortly thereafter, announced intent up preliminary acceptance applications. conditions requested June. 23370. receiving considering comments, Administration July. 41 6. offered possibly alternative jobs. "yard hostler," premises warehouse property, tire mechanic. withdrew offer, though parties exact sequence events. turned down paid less truck. 14-16, 41-42. 7. provides: "No covered entity discriminate against regard procedures, hiring, advancement, discharge employees, compensation, training, terms, conditions, privileges employment." 12112(a). 43 8. "Whether 'disabled' se, Act." Pet. Cert. i (citation omitted). 44 9. discussed disabled third, "regarded as," "disability." 1233. challenge aspect petition certiorari therefore 14.1(a); also, Yee Escondido, 503 519, 535 45 10. questioned interpretive guidance promulgated definitional section, 12102 purposes assume, deciding, valid, occasion decide deference, due, ante., 6-7). 46 11. Circuit, failure affirmance, i.e., company's favor. "failed produce material fact" 182. Circuit's denying request leaving open resolution remand. 1232 ("Albertson's contends raise regarding disabled"); ("Kirkingburg uncontroverted inability affects perception"); ("if alleges"). Moreover 15) understands explaining why score. declined petitioner disability"). Even accurate statements largely dictated outcome. Whether views tantamount sweeping character pronouncements remains same. 47 12. Individuals unable stereopsis, process combining retinal images through two-eyed gain perception, particularly short distances. At greater distances, stereopsis relatively perception. varying degrees relying cues, motion parallax, linear perspective, overlay contours, distribution highlights shadows. 1, 23-30; 300-302. 48 13. asserts initially certification, requirement, produced juror satisfied prerequisites job. Respondent 36, 37; legal, factual, one. event, ample policy adherence truckdrivers, see, 53, 55-56, 333, bar inference detect discrepancy during certifications raised 14. EEOC's implementing define "[q]ualification standards" personal professional attributes including skill, education, physical, medical, established eligible desired." 1630.2(q) 50 15. Interpretive Guidance authority carry 12116 §§1630.15(b) (c) (requiring safety-related evaluated standard); §1630.10 selection criteria "safety requirements, hearing requirements," job-related, amenable accommodation); Exxon Corp., 635, 645 (ND Tex. (adopting direct-threat standard). interpretation, higher confront 51 16. recognize defense liability challenged action necessitated another regulation," 1630.15(e) invoke effect. 52 17. codified 31136(a)(3). 53 18. recently amended Equity 21st Century, Pub. L. 105-178, 112 107. provides 2-year renewable "exemption" exemption likely achieve equivalent to, than, achieved absent exemption." §4007, 401, A. §31315(b) (Oct. 1998 Supp.). 54 19. acting pursuant §204(a) Interstate Commerce 304(a) (1970 ed.), likewise operation." 55 20. Commission "[g]ood both eyes (either glasses, correction glasses), red green colors." 113120 (1937). 1939, changed "visual glasses glasses) (Snellen) 20/100 form meridians point fixation; red, green, yellow." 6793-6794 (1992) (internal quotation marks 1952, strengthened eye. 6794. 56 21. hardly surprising events struck support formulaic consistency 1289 1994). "revalidated" issued, included before Columbia Circuit. 59 50887, 50889-50890 (1994); 59386, 59389. meantime continued want things ways. said publicly, collected itself, obtained better those regulation. 50890. recommended "leaving unchanged," 64 16518 (1999) Berson, M. Kuperwaser, Aiello, J. Rosenberg, Requirements Commercial Drivers, Oct. 16, 1998), recommendation supports "view safety." (1999). participated expired March 31, 1996, still-active participants continue provided 61 13338, 13345 (1996); 391.64 justified original (1996). wake 1996 exclusion Rauenhorst Dept. Transportation, 95 715, 723 (1996), taking waivers, 63 66226 initiated 107, exemptions regular basis, 67600 (interim Century). CONCURRING OPINION Thomas, concurring. 58 reads With ed., Transportation's related, employees imposing workplace. assumes, correct. Ante, that, analyzed lens, explains, 21-22, unprecedented nonsensical interpret §12113 respondent points out, though, relevant "qualified disability" individual." §12112(a). Presumably, bears proving, inter alia, individual. phrase mean: 60 accommodation, holds desires. subchapter, given essential, prepared written description advertising interviewing job, job." §12111(8) (emphasis added). sought trucks commerce. quintessential function seems me, respondent's 62 14, Regulations bind petitioner-it "permit drive." 391.11 token, he/she vehicle." Ibid.; §391.41 ("A physically so"). equally binds surely petitioner's thought accommodate fact, 15-20, nothing reason, certainly unreasonable. result statute. forced choose alternatives, prefer nevertheless below viewed tailored around view. circumstances, approach. opinion, laws critical

Category: 1