Court Opinion

ID: 9433854
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:41:29.900903+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:43.629419
License: Public Domain

Justice Stevens,
with whom Justice Breyer joins, dissenting.
For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., ante, at 495,1 respectfully dissent. I believe that petitioner has a “disability” within the meaning of the ADA because, assuming petitioner’s uncontested evidence to be true, his very severe hypertension — in its un-medicated state — “substantially limits” his ability to perform several major life activities. Without medication, petitioner would likely be hospitalized. See App. 81. Indeed, unlike Sutton, this case scarcely requires us to speculate whether Congress intended the Act to cover individuals with this impairment. Severe hypertension, in my view, easily falls within the ADA’s nucleus of covered impairments. See Sutton, ante, at 496-503 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
Because the Court of Appeals did not address whether petitioner was qualified or whether he could perform the essential job functions, App. to Pet. for Cert. 5a, I would reverse and remand for further proceedings.