On January 8, 1999, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether a monocular driver of a commercial vehicle, who fails to meet the minimum federal vision requirements, is "disabled" and "otherwise qualified" under the ADA. In addition, the Court will decide if an employer must adopt an experimental vision waiver program as a means of "reasonable accommodation.”
This case involves a truck driver who claimed that the Albertson’s supermarket chain violated the ADA when it fired him after he failed a vision test. Kirkingburg, who has monocular vision, has been a commercial truck driver since 1979 with a good driving record when he was hired in 1990 by Albertson's supermarket. Prior to being hired, Kirkingburg performed well on a 16-mile road test administered by the company and was certified by a company physician that he met federal Department of Transportation vision standards. He was recertified after several months on the job.
In 1991, Kirkingburg suffered a non-driving injury and was off the job for almost a year. When he returned to work and took a new vision test, a company physician refused to certify that he met the DOT vision standard. Kirkingburg told the company that he applied for a waiver of the regular vision requirement under the Federal Highway Administration's vision waiver program established to bring DOT standards in compliance with the ADA. Albertson's told him that it would not accept the waiver and fired him in 1992 for failing to meet the vision standard. Albertson's refused to reconsider hiring Kirkingburg after he received the waiver.
The trial court ruled for the employer. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, stating that Kirkingburg suffers from a disability and he is therefore protected under the ADA. The court further held that the company cannot selectively adopt and reject federal safety regulations when the effect of its policy is to discriminate against otherwise qualified drivers with disabilities.
The Supreme Court reversed, ruling on 6/22/99 that an employer is entitled to require as a job qualification that an employee meet the standards of an applicable federal safety regulation that tends to exclude the disabled. The ADA does not require an employer to defend itself against participating in an experimental federal waiver program.
The Court ruled that an ADA plaintiff must show that he or she was "substantially impaired" in a major life activity, not just that there was a significant difference. In addition, mitigating factors must be taken into account.