The Court also held that the protections afforded by applicable provisions of the ADA are worded in such a way as to indicate that they pertain to disabilities with respect to their condition as corrected by assistance devices or medications. Since petitioners asserted that their physical disabilities were mitigated effectively by corrective lenses, they do not meet the statutory definition of "disabled" by virtue of their uncorrected visual acuity. Finally, the Court held that respondent, American Air Lines, had not regarded petitioners as "substantially limited" in the major life activity of working, in that it merely set out objective physical standards for one specific job, that of global airline pilot. Since those standards did not apply to other positions within its organization, such as that of instructor pilot or regional pilot, petitioners...
The practical future implication of the Sutton decision is that Americans who receive treatment for physical disabilities may lose ADA protection to whatever extent such treatment effectively mitigates any physical limitations attributable to their condition, even when the same condition would have qualified them for complete ADA protection, if left untreated.
