Ninth Circuit Finds That Vision Impairment That Affects Commuting Is A Disability
In Livingston v. Fred Meyer Stores, Inc., 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 15044 (9th Cir. 2010), the plaintiff was discharged after she refused to work her scheduled shift, claiming her vision impairment affected her ability to commute to and from work and therefore required accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The District Court found that the plaintiff did not have a disability because her vision impairment did not limit any major life activity. The District Court also held that the company was not obligated to grant her request for a modified work schedule because the duty to accommodate does not extend to limitations related to commuting.
The Ninth Circuit disagreed. In concluding that the plaintiff did have a disability, the Ninth Circuit cited the EEOC’s Regulations and case law holding that seeing is a major life activity.. In addition, even though plaintiff’s disability did not affect her ability to function effectively, the Ninth Circuit found that the company still had a duty to accommodate her inability to finish her scheduled shift.
This case underscores the impact of the amendments to the ADA which expand the definition of what is considered to be a major life activity. Although commuting to and from work may seem to be an activity incidental to performing ones’ job functions, the clear trend is to interpret the ADA's protections in an employee-friendly manner.
