Controlled impairments under the Americans with disabilities act: A search for the meaning of "disability"

Wisconsin Law Review

Volumn 73, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 575-

  Harris, Erica Worth ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0347038969     PISSN: 0043650X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (2)

1. See infra text accompanying notes 19-21.
2. See Chandler v. City of Dallas, 2 F.3d 1385 (5th Cir. 1993) (declaring that persons are not handicapped if their vision can be corrected to 20/200); Fallacaro v. Richardson, 965 F. Supp. 87, 92 (D.D.C. 1997) (holding plaintiff's disability must be measured without considering benefit of her contact lenses); Sicard v. City of Sioux City, 950 F. Supp. 1420, 1424, 1430 (N.D. Iowa 1996) (holding determination of whether plaintiff's myopia constituted disability under ADA should be made without regard to corrective lenses even when plaintiff's vision was corrected to 20/20); Sweet v. Electronic Data Sys., Inc., No. 95 Civ. 3987 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 26, 1996) (holding plaintiff with corrected vision of 20/80 does not have disability); Joyce v. Suffolk County, 911 F. Supp. 92, 96 (E.D.N.Y. 1996) (looking at plaintiff's need to wear corrective lenses to determine whether he had disability).