The Chief Justice’s opinion attacked this conclusion by focusing on the language
in the ADA that demands that the determinations of disability and
accommodation be individualized. This language was put into the ADA to
prevent employers from excluding disabled workers based on stereotypes of
what persons with a specific disability can do. The employer must give the
employee a chance to do the job, rather than have blanket exclusions based
on laundry lists of disabilities. The Chief Justice argued that this standard of
individualized determination of disability should also be applied to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff rejected this individualized determination and denied that she,
personally, suffered any impairment to a major life function:
There is absolutely no evidence that, absent the HIV, respondent would
have had or was even considering having children. Indeed, when asked
during her deposition whether her HIV infection had in any way
impaired her ability to carry out any of her life functions, respondent
answered “No.” It is further telling that in the course of her entire brief
to this Court, respondent studiously avoids asserting even once that
reproduction is a major life activity to her. To the contrary, she argues
that the “major life activity” inquiry should not turn on a particularized
assessment of the circumstances of this or any other case.
