after she takes her medication, the asthma she suffers does not substantially limit her major life activity of breathing. The District Court further held that the EEOC's Interpretative Guidance(Guidelines) which provides that the determination whether an impairment such as Respondent's asthma substantially limits a major life activity should be made without regard to mitigating measures, including medication, was an impermissible construction of ADA and its regulation; and, that therefore, it was inapplicable to the present case.
In September 1998, Respondent appealed the order of the District Court to the Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth Circuit (the "Court of Appeals"). On October 31, 1998, the Court of Appeals reversed the order of the District Court and remanded the case to it for further proceedings on the grounds that the aforesaid Interpretive Guidance of the EEOC did apply to a serious impairment such as Respondent's asthma in its unmitigated state and that, therefore, she had stated a claim under ADA. This Court then granted certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
The EEOC's Interpretive Guideline which determines that mitigating measures such as medication should not be taken into account in determining whether a medical condition of an individual substantially limits his or her major life activities contradicts the plain language of ADA. Although the federal courts should give deference to agency interpretations, they need not give much deference to those which do not comply with the Administrative Procedures Act, nor any to those which run counter to the statute itself. Although there is a split in authority on the subject, a number of federal courts have failed to heed that Interpretive Guideline because its enforcement would run counter to the expressed intent of Congress which was to limit recovery under ADA to persons who suffer from real disabilities and are discriminated against on accou...