In the case of Karen Sutton and Kimberly Hinton v. United Airlines, Inc., the Supreme Court ruled in 1999 that poor eyesight does not necessarily constitute a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The plaintiffs, identical twin sisters who were both severely myopic, applied to be global airline pilots for United but were rejected because they did not meet the company's uncorrected vision requirement. They sued under ADA claiming discrimination due to their visual impairment. However, the court held that since their condition could be corrected to normal levels using eyeglasses or contact lenses, it did not substantially limit them in any major life activities - a key criterion for defining disabilities as per ADA. Therefore, they were deemed ineligible for protection under this act.

In the dissenting opinion for Karen Sutton and Kimberly Hinton v. United Airlines, Inc., Justice Stevens argued that the majority's interpretation of "substantially limits" in defining disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was too narrow. He contended that this restrictive view failed to consider Congress' intent when passing ADA - to provide broad protection against discrimination for people with disabilities. According to him, by considering mitigating measures like eyeglasses in determining whether an individual is disabled, the court effectively excluded a large number of individuals who are otherwise considered disabled without such measures from ADA’s protections. Moreover, he expressed concern over how this ruling could potentially limit future claims based on other types of impairments which can be corrected or mitigated through medication or devices.