In the 1998 case of Vaughn L. Murphy v. United Parcel Service, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed whether an employer's decision not to accommodate a disabled employee with work restrictions constituted discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The plaintiff, Vaughn L. Murphy, was a mechanic for UPS who had high blood pressure that prevented him from meeting certain Department of Transportation health requirements necessary for his job role. Although he could perform most tasks associated with his position, UPS refused to make accommodations and instead fired him due to these limitations. The court ruled in favor of UPS stating that if an individual is unable to meet all qualifications required by federal regulations for their job role - even if they can perform other essential functions - then they are not considered "qualified" under ADA standards and therefore cannot claim discrimination based on disability status.

In the dissenting opinion for Vaughn L. Murphy v. United Parcel Service, 1998, it was argued that the majority's interpretation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was too narrow and restrictive. The dissenting justices believed that this ruling would limit protections for disabled individuals in employment situations by setting a high bar for what constitutes a disability under ADA guidelines. They contended that an individual should not have to be severely restricted or unable to perform a broad range of jobs in order to qualify as disabled under the ADA; rather, they suggested that if an impairment substantially limits one major life activity—such as lifting—it should suffice as evidence of disability regardless of whether other activities are affected or not. Furthermore, they disagreed with how mitigating measures like medication were considered when determining if someone is legally disabled - arguing these shouldn't negate their status but instead support accommodation needs.