Federal court dismisses an ADA suit brought by a police applicant who was rejected because of a color vision impairment. He was not regarded as disabled and the lack of normal color vision is not a substantial limitation on the ability to see. Finally, he was not entitled to reasonable accommodation. Lekich v. Munic. Police Officers Educ. Training Cmsn., #08-1048, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 16645, 21 AD Cases (BNA) 1409 (E.D. Pa.).
     Federal court concludes that color blindness is not a protected disability. Lekich v. Municipal Police Officers Educational Training Commission, #08-1048, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 16645 (E.D. Pa.).
     Monocular vision (blindness in one eye) is not a disability under the ADA unless a plaintiff can also show that the loss of vision affects his ability to engage in daily activities. Congleton v. Weil-McLain, #01-CV-2237, 2003 U.S. Dist. Lexis 15573 (E.D. Pa. 2003); prior decis. at 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis 12266. {N/R}
     An applicant with monocular vision was not a qualified individual under the ADA, as he could not meet defendant's vision standards. Dyke v. O'Neal Steel, #01-2821, 2003 U.S. App. Lexis 8480 (7th Cir. 2003). {N/R}
     Federal court upholds the termination of a 15+ year police officer that had 20/80 vision in one eye. Knoll v. SEPTA, #01-2711, 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis 17164 (E.D. Pa. 2002). [2003 FP Feb]
     Federal court dismisses the ADA claim of a police applicant who lost an eye. Rivera v. City of Jacksonville, #7:00-CV-41- F1, unreported (E.D.N.C. 3/2/2001). [2001 FP 61-2]
     California appellate court reverses a damage verdict for a deputy sheriff applicant, who was rejected for color blindness. Diffey v. Riverside Co. Sheriff's Dept., #E024523, 2000 Cal. App. Lexis 868, 101 Cal.Rptr.2d 353. See also, Hoppes v. Comm. of Penna. Fish and Boat Cmsn., 32 F.Supp.2d 770, 1998 U.S. Dist. Lexis 20809 (M.D.Pa. 1998). [2001 FP 14]
     Rejected applicants cannot enhance their discrimination claim by pleading Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act. Wilson v. Pa. St. Police, #94-6547, Unreported; prior decisions at 1999 WL 179692, 1999 U.S. Dist. Lexis 3165; 964 F.Supp. 898, 1997 U.S. Dist. Lexis 3795, 6 AD Cases (BNA) 1125; 1995 WL 422750; and 1995 WL 129202, 1995 U.S. Dist. Lexis 3788, 4 AD Cases (BNA) 396 (E.D. Pa.). [2000 FP 77]
     Supreme Court holds that a person with one bad eye was not "disabled" within the meaning of the ADA. Albertsons, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, 119 S.Ct. 2162, 1999 U.S. Lexis 4369. [1999 FP 126]
     Supreme Court rejects ADA claims of applicants with bad uncorrected vision; if their eyesight is corrected with lenses to normal vision, they are not disabled. Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc. 119 S.Ct. 2139, 1999 U.S. Lexis 4371. [1999 FP 126-7] and [1998 FP 30]
     Federal court finds that color blindness is not a disability under the ADA; police agency also articulated reasons why color recognition is a critical test for police officers. Hoppes v. Penna., 32 F.Supp.2d 770, 1998 U.S. Dist. Lexis 20809 (M.D.Pa.). [1999 FP 61-2]
     Ohio supreme court rejects a firefighter applicant with 20/100 vision. Splitting with other courts, six justices concluded he was not disabled under state or federal law. Columbus Civ. Serv. Cmsn. v. McGlone, 1998 Ohio Lexis 2202, 697 N.E.2d 204. [1998 FP 173-4]
     Federal appeals court in Chicago refuses to reinstate a nearly-blind corrections officer to a permanent light duty position. Although she might perform routine duties, she could not function in an emergency. The fact others were temporarily given special duty assignments while recovering does not help those with permanent disabilities. Miller v. IL Dept. of Corrections, 107 F.3d 483, 1997 U.S. App. Lexis 2815, 6 AD Cases (BNA) 678 (7th Cir.). [1998 FP 109-110]
     Ohio appellate court orders a city to hire a rejected applicant and pay his lost wages. He had 20/100 vision, corrected to 20/20. The justices rejected the city's claim that contact lenses are hazardous. Columbus Civ. Serv. Cmsn. v. McGlone, 1997 Ohio App. Lexis 1234. Reversed - See above. [1998 FP 45]
     A police detective who suffered significant loss of vision to the point he could not drive and had trouble seeing well enough to collect evidence at crime scenes was not qualified to perform the functions of his position. Even though the department had tried to accommodate him in the past by driving him to crime scenes, it was not obligated to continue to do so. Holbrook v. City of Alpharetta, Ga., 112 F.3d 1522 (11th Cir. 1997). {N/R}
     State court in Connecticut allows a suit, brought under the state's anti-disability law by a city police officer, who was rejected as a state trooper because he wears contact lenses to achieve 20/20 eyesight. He was not prevented from litigating in state court because he lost a similar action in federal court [rptd. at 921 F.Supp. 78 (D. Conn. 1995)]. Venclauskas v. Connecticut, #CV 960471879, 1997 NDLR (LRP) Lexis 217 (Super. Ct. Hartford Dist., Conn.). {N/R}
     Federal court in Pennsylvania holds that nearsightedness is a disability under the ADA. State trooper applicants challenge a 20/70 - 20/200 eyesight requirement. Wilson v. Pa. St. Police, #94-6547, 964 F.Supp. 898, 1997 U.S. Dist. Lexis 3795, 6 AD Cases (BNA) 1125. Prior decis. at 1995 WL 422750 and 1995 WL 129202, 1995 U.S. Dist. Lexis 3788, 4 AD Cases (BNA) 396 (E.D. Pa.). [1997 FP 76-7] {subseq. decis. at 1999 WL 179692, 1999 U.S. Dist. Lexis 3165 (3-11-1999)}.
     Employee's monocular vision substantially limited his major life activity of sight, even though his vision is nearly perfect in one eye, because a his peripheral vision and depth perception are substantially different from those others. EEOC v. U.P.R.R., 1998 U.S. Dist. Lexis 3577, 7 AD Cases (BNA) 1459 (D.Idaho). {N/R}
     Federal court in California holds that myopia, if severe, is a disability within the meaning of the ADA. Peacock v. Co. of Marin, 953 F.Supp. 306 (N.D.Cal. 1997). [1997 FP 157]
     DOJ wins consent decree against city that refused to hire a firefighter applicant with monocular vision. $105,000 in backpay and benefits awarded. U.S. v. City of Pontiac, #94-CV-74997-DT, 1997 FEP Summary 113 (E.D.Mich. 1997). www.usdoj.gov/ (DOJ #97- 338) [1997 FP 157-8]
     Federal appeals panel affirms an award of damages, back pay and reinstatement order given to a former police officer who was denied re- employment after he lost his sight in one eye. Doane v. City of Omaha, 115 F.3d 624, 1997 U.S.App. Lexis 16172 (8th Cir.). [1997 FP 141]
     Federal courts in Iowa and Pennsylvania hold that nearsightedness is a disability under the ADA. Cases involved rejected applicants for state trooper and city firefighter. Wilson v. Pa. St. Police, 964 F.Supp. 898, 1997 U.S.Dist. Lexis 3795 (E.D.Pa.); Sicard v. Sioux City Fire Dept., 950 F.Supp. 1420, 1996 U.S.Dist. Lexis 19087 (D. Iowa). See also, Doane v. City of Omaha, 115 F.3d 624, 1997 U.S. App. Lexis 16172, in the same circuit. [1997 FP 76-7]
     Police applicant with 20/200 R&L and an elevated blood pressure was not handicapped under the ADA. Joyce v. Suffolk Co., 911 F.Supp. 92, 1996 U.S.Dist. Lexis 596, 6 AD Cases (BNA) 867 (E.D.N.Y.). [1996 FP 141]
     EEOC orders a federal law enf. agency to justify its uncorrected 20/70 eyesight standard for applicants and to explain why that standard is not applied to existing personnel. Flynn-Banigan v. Reno, EEOC #01942876, 20 (4) MPDLR (ABA) 525 (EEOC 1996). [1996 FP 158-9]
     Federal court refuses to order the reinstatement of a vision-impaired corrections officer. To accommodate her, the state would have to create a new position she could function at. Miller v. Dept. of Corrections, 916 F.Supp. 863; 1996 U.S.Dist. Lexis 2391 (C.D.Ill.). [1996 FP 94]
     Former police officer, who became a dispatcher when he went blind in one eye, sued for reinstatement. Jury awards him $50,000 for pain and suffering. Doane v. City of Omaha, 33 G.E.R.R. (BNA) 1430 (D.Neb. 1995). [1996 FP 46-7]
     Ohio courts uphold discrimination suit by firefighter applicant with an eyelid that does not close completely. Cleveland (City of) v. Ohio Civ. Rts. Cmsn., 98 Ohio App.3d 243, 648 N.E.2d 516 (1994); aff'd, 71 Ohio St.3d 1497, 646 N.E.2d 1122 (1995). [1996 FP 29]
     Federal court holds that "night blindness" is not a protected a disability. Schwarz v. Northw. Iowa Comm. Coll., 881 F.Supp. 1323 (N.D.Iowa 1995). [1996 FP 29]
     Federal court allows a rejected applicant to bring a class action seeking injunctive relief against state police hiring standards, without proof he is disabled under the ADA. Wilson v. Pa. St. Police, 1995 U.S.Dist. Lexis 9981 (E.D.Pa.). [1995 FP 157-8]
     Federal court finds Oregon's 20/200 minimum eyesight standard violates the ADA. O'Neil v. Bd. Pub. Sfty. Stds. & Training, #94-240-AS (D.Ore. 1994). {AELE Ref. #5579} [1995 FP 78]
     Justice Dept. sues Michigan fire dept. for rejecting a one-eyed applicant. U.S. (Henderson) v. City of Pontiac, #94-74997 (E.D. Mich. 12/13/94). [1995 FP 57]
     Appellate court sustains discrimination suit of a firefighter applicant who was rejected because an eyelid would not fully close. Cleveland (City of) v. Ohio Civil Rts. Cmsn., 648 N.E.2d 516, 1994 Ohio App. Lexis 3908. [1995 FP 57]
     EEOC General Counsel interprets what vision tests may be given applicants at the pre-offer stage of screening. EEOC: Enforcement Guidance on Pre-Employment Inquiries Under the A.D.A., FEP Manual (BNA) 405:7211-12 (#748, 1994). [1994 FP 142]
     Applicant with a severe visual disability was entitled to take a two-day qualifying exam over a four day period. Extra time was a reasonable accommodation under the A.D.A. and an injunctive relief was granted. D'Amico v. N.Y. St. Bd. of Law Examiners, 813 F.Supp. 217 (W.D.N.Y. 1993). {N/R}
     California fire dept. pays $98,500 to settle the discrimination suit of an applicant who was rejected under a 20/70 uncorrected eyesight standard. Doe v. City of Oakland, 107 (19) L.A.D.J. Verdicts & Settlements 5 (N.D. Cal. 1993). [1994 FP 78]
     More stringent state eyesight standards for armed officers prevail over less stringent federal standards, absent specific federal preemption. Handicap discrimination claim not raised. Demmy v. Penn. State Police, 611 A.2d 782 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1992). [1993 FP 62]
     Pennsylvania appellate court rules that job applicant with 20/40 corrected vision is not "handicapped." McCloskey v. Nu-Car Carriers, 2 AD Cases (BNA) 801 (Pa.Super. 1989). [1993 FP 125-6]
     Iowa Supreme Court upholds a law enforcement academy's 20/20 corrected standard for both eyes. Impaired vision is not a "disability" and the standards were reasonable. Hollinrake v. Iowa Law Enf. Academy, 2 AD Cases (BNA) 1066 (Iowa 1990). [1993 FP 157-8]
     Police Dept. rule requiring newly appointed officers to have a minimum of 20/30 uncorrected vision does not violate Sec. 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The impaired vision of the plaintiffs did not interfere with their ability to engage in life's major activities and they were not "handicapped" within meaning of the Act. Trembczynski v. City of Calumet City, #87-C-0961 (N.D.Ill. 1987).
     County deputy sheriff with eyesight abnormality was not legally "handicapped" and was lawfully rejected as a city police applicant. Cecil v. Gibson, 820 S.W.2d 361 (Tenn. App. 1991). [1992 FP 61-2]
     Colorado supreme court reverses summary judgment favoring a firefighter applicant with 20/50-L and 20/100-R uncorrected vision. Colorado Civ. Rts. Cmsn. v. N. Wash. Fire Prot. Dist., 2 AD Cases (BNA) 1545 (Colo. 1989).
     Illinois appellate court strikes down 20/30 eyesight standard for police applicant who was 20/100 vision corrected to 20/20. City of Belleville Bd. of Police and Fire Cmsnrs. v. Human Rights Cmsn., 522 N.E.2d 268 (Ill.App. 1988).
     Wisconsin supreme court holds that a deputy sheriff applicant with 20/400 vision correctable to 20/20 was "handicapped" within meaning of the states Fair Employment Act. Brown v. Labor & Ind. Rev. Cmsn., 124 Wis.2d 560, 369 N.W.2d 735, 1 AD Cases 785 (1985).
     Minnesota appellate court upholds refusal to hire deputy with 20/200 vision; applicant was not a "handicapped" person and a 20/100 vision requirement was job-related. State by Cooper v. Hennepin County, 425 N.W.2d 278 (1988).
     Ohio appellate court upholds 20/40 visual acuity standard for police officer applicants; poor eyesight not a handicap. City of Columbus v. Ohio Civil Rights Cmsn., 23 Ohio App. 178, 492 N.E.2d 482 (Ohio App. 1985).
     Kansas Supreme Court upholds Topeka's police and fire eyesight standards for new employees; federal and state handicap laws not applicable. Padilla v. City of Topeka, 708 P.2d 543 (Kan. 1985).
     Article: Vision Standards for Law Enforcement: A Descriptive Study. Journal of Police Science and Administration. (June 1984).
     Article: Optics professor publishes job-related performance oriented eyesight standards study for police departments. Journal of Police Science and Administration (Sept. 1980).
     Nebraska supreme court upholds 20/30 eyesight requirement; handicap discrimination laws not applicable. McCrea v. Cunningham, 277 N.W.2d 52 (Neb. 1979).
     New York court affirms dismissal of officers with vision below 20/40. Buono v. Bahou, 406 N.Y.S.2d 166 (A.D. 1978).
     20/40 U/C eyesight entry standard upheld by N.Y. appellate court; applicant was 20/70 U/C. Lockman v. Van Voris, 81 Misc.2d 692, 366 N.Y.S.2d 536, 1975 N.Y. Misc. Lexis 2447 (1975).