Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc.
E560319
Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc. is a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court decision that narrowly interpreted who qualifies as disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act, prompting Congress to later broaden the law’s coverage through the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc. canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T5951102 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc. Context triple: [Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008, respondsTo, Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc.]
-
A.
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green is a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the key burden-shifting framework for proving employment discrimination under Title VII.
-
B.
Breedlove v. Suttles
Breedlove v. Suttles was a 1937 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld state poll taxes as constitutional, reinforcing barriers to voting until later overturned during the civil rights era.
-
C.
Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda
Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that held federal employment discrimination law protects gay and lesbian employees from being fired because of their sexual orientation.
-
D.
Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio
Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio is a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court case that narrowed the standards for proving employment discrimination under Title VII, prompting Congress to later revise those standards in the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
-
E.
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. is a landmark 1928 New York Court of Appeals case, authored by Judge Benjamin Cardozo, that established the modern American doctrine of proximate cause and foreseeability in negligence law.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc. Target entity description: Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc. is a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court decision that narrowly interpreted who qualifies as disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act, prompting Congress to later broaden the law’s coverage through the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.
-
A.
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green is a 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that established the key burden-shifting framework for proving employment discrimination under Title VII.
-
B.
Breedlove v. Suttles
Breedlove v. Suttles was a 1937 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld state poll taxes as constitutional, reinforcing barriers to voting until later overturned during the civil rights era.
-
C.
Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda
Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that held federal employment discrimination law protects gay and lesbian employees from being fired because of their sexual orientation.
-
D.
Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio
Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio is a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court case that narrowed the standards for proving employment discrimination under Title VII, prompting Congress to later revise those standards in the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
-
E.
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. is a landmark 1928 New York Court of Appeals case, authored by Judge Benjamin Cardozo, that established the modern American doctrine of proximate cause and foreseeability in negligence law.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (46)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Americans with Disabilities Act case
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court case ⓘ disability law case ⓘ |
| appliedStatute | Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| appliedStatutoryProvision | 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2) ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
federal civil rights law
ⓘ
labor and employment law ⓘ |
| citation |
119 S. Ct. 2139
ⓘ
144 L. Ed. 2d 450 ⓘ 527 U.S. 471 ⓘ |
| concurringJustice |
Anthony M. Kennedy
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Stephen G. Breyer NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| criticizedFor | restrictive reading of the ADA’s definition of disability ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1999-06-22 ⓘ |
| defendant | United Air Lines, Inc. NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| dissentingJustice |
John Paul Stevens
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Ruth Bader Ginsburg NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 97-1943 ⓘ |
| effectOnLaw | prompted Congress to broaden ADA coverage through the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 ⓘ |
| employmentContext | airline pilot position ⓘ |
| factualBackground | plaintiffs were twin sisters with severe myopia who were denied employment as global airline pilots ⓘ |
| holding |
Individuals whose impairments are corrected by mitigating measures may not be disabled under the ADA
ⓘ
Mitigating measures must be considered in determining whether an individual is disabled under the ADA ⓘ |
| impact | limited the number of individuals qualifying as disabled under the ADA before 2008 ⓘ |
| influenced | ADA Amendments Act of 2008 NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| issue |
definition of disability under the ADA
ⓘ
whether mitigating measures are considered in determining disability ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | federal question jurisdiction ⓘ |
| legalPrinciple | disability must be evaluated in its mitigated state under the pre-2008 ADA ⓘ |
| legalSubject |
disability discrimination
ⓘ
employment discrimination ⓘ statutory interpretation ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | Sandra Day O’Connor NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| overruledInEffectBy | ADA Amendments Act of 2008 NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| plaintiff |
Karen Sutton
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Kim Sutton NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| precedentFor | narrow interpretation of disability under the ADA prior to 2008 ⓘ |
| proceduralPosture | review of a decision dismissing plaintiffs’ ADA claims ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
Albertsons, Inc. v. Kirkingburg
NERFINISHED
ⓘ
Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc. NERFINISHED ⓘ |
| result | judgment for United Air Lines, Inc. ⓘ |
| subsequentDevelopment | Congress rejected Sutton’s mitigating-measures rule in the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 ⓘ |
| vote | 7-2 ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 1999 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc. Description of subject: Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc. is a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court decision that narrowly interpreted who qualifies as disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act, prompting Congress to later broaden the law’s coverage through the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008
→
respondsTo
→
Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc.
ⓘ