During the past decade, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on three cases, generally referred to as the “Sutton trilogy,” that sharply narrowed the scope of Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) protection. Specifically, the Court ruled that mitigating and/or corrective measures must be taken into account in determining whether an individual is eligible for protection under the ADA. The authors briefly review the Sutton trilogy case law, summarize the ADA 2008 amendments, and provide recommendations for employers concerning policy development that will proactively address the major modifications of ADA 2008 amendment.
Albertson’s, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. 555 (1999).
2.
Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (1990).
3.
Americans With Disabilities Act Amendments, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (2008).
4.
Colker, R. ( 2007). The mythic 43 million Americans with disabilities . William and Mary Law Review, 49(1), 1-64.
5.
Collins v. Prudential Investment & Retirement Services, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 148 (3d Cir. 2005) [Unpublished].
6.
E.E.O.C. v. Centura Health Corporation, No. 05-cv-01826-WDM-MJW, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70174 (D. Colo. Sept. 20, 2007).
7.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Regulations to Implement the Equal Employment Provisions of the Americans With Disabilities Act, 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2 et seq. (2001).
8.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Department of Transportation, Qualifications of Drivers and Longer Combination Vehicle (LCV) Driver Instructors, 49 C.F.R. § 391.41(b) (6) (1998).
Joyce, M. ( 2002). Has the Americans With Disabilities Act fallen on deaf ears?-A post-Sutton analysis of mitigating measures in the Seventh Circuit . Chicago-Kent Law Review, 77, 1389-1412.
11.
Krocka v. City of Chicago, 203 F.3d 507, 513 (7th Cir. 2000).
12.
Murphy v. United Parcel Service, 527 U.S. 516 (1999#x00029;.
