In the case of Albertson's, Inc. v. Hallie Kirkingburg (1998), the U.S Supreme Court ruled on issues related to disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The plaintiff, Hallie Kirkingburg, was a truck driver for Albertson's who had been dismissed from his job due to failing an eye exam that revealed he suffered from amblyopia or "lazy eye," which left him effectively monocular and unable to meet Department of Transportation vision standards for commercial drivers. He sued Albertson’s claiming they violated ADA by not providing reasonable accommodation for his condition. The court held that even though Kirkingburg could function normally in daily life despite his visual impairment, it did not mean he wasn't disabled under ADA definitions. However, because he obtained a waiver allowing him to drive commercially again after being fired but before filing suit against Albertsons', this meant that at the time of suing he was technically qualified for his job without needing any accommodations from them - thus they hadn’t discriminated against him as per ADA guidelines when firing him originally.

In the dissenting opinion for Albertson's, Inc. v. Hallie Kirkingburg, Justice Stevens argued that the majority had misinterpreted the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). He believed that Kirklingburg’s monocular vision should be considered a disability under ADA because it substantially limited his ability to see compared to most people in general population. The fact that he developed compensatory skills did not negate this limitation but rather demonstrated his effort to overcome it. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view on "regarded as" disabled provision of ADA; arguing an employer who takes adverse action based on stereotypical assumptions related to a physical impairment is regarding an individual as disabled regardless of whether they believe their actions are justified by business necessity or safety concerns.