In Diffey v. Riverside County Sheriff’s Department, 2000 Cal. App. Lexis 868, the California Court of Appeal determined that there was no evidence to support the jury’s finding that the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department (County) regarded Teg Diffey (Plaintiff) as disabled because he is color-blind.
Plaintiff is affected by protanopia, the inability to see red. County rejected Plaintiff’s application to be a deputy sheriff because Plaintiff could not pass two required color-vision tests. Therefore, Plaintiff sued County under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Under both the FEHA and the ADA, a person is considered disabled if he has or is regarded as having a physiological disorder or condition that (1) affects one or more body systems and (2) substantially limits the ability to participate in a major life activity (such as caring for one’s self, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working).
Although the jury determined that Plaintiff was not disabled – that none of his major life activities were substantially limited by his color-blindness – it determined that County regarded Plaintiff as disabled. Thus, it awarded Plaintiff a verdict of $307,244. However, finding no evidence to support the jury’s conclusion, the California Court of Appeal reversed the verdict.
The Court of Appeal reviewed the evidence to determine whether it could support a conclusion that County regarded Plaintiff’s color-blindness as substantially limiting his ability to participate in the major life activities of seeing and working. Concerning the major life activity of seeing, the Court of Appeal determined that, although Plaintiff’s sight was affected by his color-blindness, his “seeing” was not substantially limited. According to the Court, “[s]ome effect on vision, like blindness in one eye, does not create a disability per se.” Furthermore, the Court determined that County did not perceive Plaintiff’s color-blindness (a non-disabling condition) as affecting his ability to see – it simply regarded him as being color-blind, not as being blind.
With regard to the major life activity of working, the Court of Appeal determined that color-vision is a valid job requirement for a deputy sheriff. Furthermore, the Court noted that the major life activity of working is not substantially limited where it involves only one job, such as being a deputy sheriff. This is true even if deputy sheriff positions in other cities make color-vision a valid job requirement. Although County regarded Plaintiff as limited from working as a deputy sheriff, Plaintiff could not show that County regarded him as substantially limited in the major life activity of working, even in other areas of law enforcement.
Because color-blindness is not a disability and because County did not regard Plaintiff as disabled, the Court of Appeal reversed the jury verdict in favor of Plaintiff.
Legal Alert Email Disclaimer
Legal Alerts are published by Kronick Moskovitz Tiedemann & Girard as a timely reporting service to alert clients and other friends of recent changes in case law, opinions or codes. This alert does not represent the legal opinion of the firm or any member of the firm on the issues described, and the information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice. Should further analysis or explanation of the subject matter be required, please contact the attorney with whom you normally consult.