While the plaintiff's bar was very pleased with Bragdon, it is now clear that it was unduly driven by the court's belief that HIV is an exceptional and terrible disease, one that should be under the ADA. Mr. Murphy's hypertension is also a condition with significant long-term medical consequences. Ironically, under the reasoning of Bragdon, Murphy would have been covered as a woman because significant hypertension would be a consideration in a decision to become pregnant. Sutton is troubling because it allows an employer to reject an applicant based on an uncorrected impairment, but the applicant is foreclosed from challenging this under the ADA because the court judges disability based on corrected impairments. Albertsons gives employers some comfort that they will not be liable for the discrimination under the ADA when following governmental standards for job fitness, and Olmstead provides some flexibility for states in providing services under the ADA.

The lesson from all of these cases is that the detailed factual record is key to the resolution of the cases. The United States Supreme Court is serious in requiring individualized decisionmaking under the ADA. Attorneys and physicians involved in cases like Murphy must develop a detailed record of all the effects of diseases such as hypertension and its effects on the body, especially if it is resistant to treatment, or it, as with diabetes, the treatment does not stop the progression of the disease. For cases like Sutton, in which the courts limit the reach of the ADA when the plaintiff is only restricted in his/her ability to work a specific job, are more difficult to attack. The court's rationale may be correct. Reading the legislative history of the ADA indicates that Congress was mostly interested in reducing federal disability-related payouts. Since these end when the person finds employment, it is arguable that Congress did not care if employees are foreclosed from the jobs they want, as long as they can get some job. If the intent of Congress is broader, and includes the notion jobs should be open to the widest group of potential applicants, then Congress must amend the ADA because this is not in the plain language of the statute.