On March 24, 1999, the NAM filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to maintain the fair standards of the ADA and to prevent the expansion of the term "disabled" to cover individuals with controllable medical conditions. The NAM argued that employees may not claim the special protections of the ADA when their medication allows them to live normal lives.In this case, Murphy has had high blood pressure most of his life but medication controls his condition. In August 1994, Murphy applied for a position as a mechanic for UPS. All mechanic applicants must obtain a Department of Transportation health card. At the time of his medical exam, Murphy's blood pressure met the DOT standards. He was issued a health card, and UPS hired him. In September 1994, a company nurse reviewed his file and determined that his blood pressure did not meet DOT requirements for commercial drivers. UPS decided that the card was issued in error and Murphy was fired.
The trial court ruled in favor of UPS, holding that Murphy is not an individual with a disability. The court stated that the determination of whether an individual's impairment substantially limits a major life activity should take into consideration mitigating or corrective measures utilized by the individual. The Tenth Circuit affirmed, and so did the Supreme Court.
On 6/22/99, it held that the determination of whether a person with a physical or mental impairment is "disabled" under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) must be made with reference to measures — such as medication, medical devices, or assistive devices — that mitigate the person’s impairment. The Court also held that a person is "regarded as" disabled under the ADA only if the employer mistakenly believes that the person’s actual, nonlimiting impairment substantially limits one or more major life activities. Therefore, ADA plaintiffs who claim that an employer regards them as substantially limited in the major life activity of working must, at a minimum, allege an inability to work in a broad class of jobs. The Court’s decision is a tremendous victory for employers facing the specter of ADA liability.