Return to Home PageOn June 22, 1999, the Supreme Court issued decisions in two ADA cases: Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc. 527 U.S. ____, 119 S.Ct. 2139 (1999), and Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 527 U.S. ____, 119 S.Ct. 2133 (1999). The Supreme Court ruled that the determination of whether an individual has a current disability under the ADA -- i.e., an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity -- must be made by considering any "mitigating measures" that the individual uses to eliminate or reduce the effects of an impairment. The EEOC has issued a final rule deleting certain sentences found in two sections of the Interpretive Appendix to the Title I regulation to eliminate any conflict with the Sutton and Murphy rulings.
Answer: Mitigating measures are medications and assistive devices that an individual uses to eliminate or reduce the effects of an impairment. Examples of mitigating measures include medication for conditions like epilepsy, or major depression; insulin used to control diabetes; prosthetic devices; walkers, canes, and crutches; and hearing aids.
Answer: This rule only deletes certain sentences from sections 29 C.F.R. 1630.2(h) and (j) of the Interpretive Guidance that accompanies the regulations on Title I of the ADA. The deleted sentences say that mitigating measures should not be considered when determining whether someone has an ADA "disability" . This guidance is no longer effective after the Supreme Court's rulings in Sutton and Murphy.
Answer: No. The Supreme Court decisions in Sutton and Murphy emphasize that whether a particular individual has an ADA "disability" must be determined on a case-by-case basis. The fact that a person uses a mitigating measure does not necessarily mean that the person cannot meet one of the ADA's three definitions of "disability." A person may still experience substantial limitation in performing a major life activity despite, or because of, the use of a mitigating measure. First, the mitigating measure may not be that effective in eliminating or reducing the effects of an impairment. Second, the mitigating measure may produce side effects that substantially limit performance of a major life activity.
In addition, individuals who use mitigating measures and, as a result, are not substantially limited in performing a major life activity, may meet one of the ADA's other definitions of "disability." A person may have a record of a disability (i.e., s/he was substantially limited in the past), or an employer may regard the person as having a disability (i.e., the employer perceives the person as being substantially limited in performing a major life activity).
To learn more about how a person who uses a mitigating measure might meet one of the ADA's three definitions of "disability" after the Sutton and Murphy decisions, see "Instructions For Field Offices: Analyzing ADA Charges After Supreme Court Decisions Addressing Disability' and Qualified.'"
Answer: No. This final rule does not add any new text to the Interpretive Guidance. It only deletes sentences that no longer represent the correct legal interpretation of the ADA.
Answer: Yes. The definition of "disability" under section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act is identical to the definition under the ADA. Therefore, these changes apply to determining whether an individual has a "disability" under the Rehabilitation Act.
This page was last modified on June 8, 2000.