When Night Falls, ADA Still Applies: Sixth Circuit Recognizes Night Blindness as a Disability

Quick Hits

• In Edwards v. Shelby County, Tennessee, the Sixth Circuit recently held that an employee’s night blindness may qualify as a disability that would require a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.
• Night blindness is not automatically a disability but may constitute one, depending on the individual’s functional limitations, consistent with the ADA’s fact-specific inquiry.
• This decision reinforces the ADA’s broad protections after the ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA).

Background on the Case

The employee began working as an environmentalist inspector for Shelby County, Tennessee, in 2020 and was later assigned to a position that required some nighttime driving, which involved delivering groceries to guests at a hotel. Over time, her night vision deteriorated. She testified that bright lights created halos that made it difficult to see barricades, lane markers, and road signs, and she experienced impaired depth perception when driving in the dark. Although she had previously noticed problems with night vision, she did not disclose these issues on her pre-employment questionnaire or during her pre-employment medical examination, which occurred during daylight hours and did not reveal her night blindness. 

On October 4, 2021, the employee’s supervisor reassigned her to a new shift from 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m., which required her to work and drive home at night. The employee objected, explaining that she had night blindness and raising additional personal safety concerns about working alone at the hotel at night. She offered to provide medical documentation and contacted her doctors, but she was unable to obtain a note, and her supervisor never followed up on that request.

The county ultimately authorized a change to a 10:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. shift, but the supervisor did not notify the employee of the new schedule until after the start time of the revised shift. Before the employee even began her first scheduled night shift, her supervisor documented complaints about the employee’s alleged tardiness, reluctance to work at the hotel, and failure to follow directives. Within days, the county moved forward with discipline and discharged the employee shortly thereafter, citing attendance problems, insubordination, and alleged falsification of information.

The employee filed suit, alleging that the county failed to accommodate her asthma, discriminated against her based on her night blindness, and retaliated against her for requesting an accommodation. After a two-day trial, the jury found in her favor on all three claims, concluding that both her asthma and her night blindness qualified as disabilities under the ADA.

On appeal, with respect to the night blindness claim, the county argued that the jury erred in finding the employee disabled because night blindness is not a recognized disability under the ADA, night driving is not a major life activity, and the employee’s ability to occasionally drive at night demonstrated that she was not substantially limited in any major life activity. The county also contended that the employee’s request for an accommodation was not made in good faith, asserting that her real concern was crime at the hotel, rather than her ability to safely drive at night.

Sixth Circuit Ruling

The Sixth Circuit rejected the county’s arguments and affirmed the jury’s decision, emphasizing the ADA’s broad, individualized approach to determining whether a condition constitutes a disability. The court explained that, although the Sixth Circuit had not previously ruled on whether night blindness could qualify as an ADA disability, the ADAAA significantly expanded the scope of coverage and lowered the threshold for establishing a substantial limitation.

The court clarified that the relevant inquiry was not whether night driving itself is a major life activity, but whether the employee’s condition substantially limited the major life activity of seeing, which is expressly protected under the ADA. The court further noted that the ADA does not require a person to be completely unable to perform an activity to be substantially limited. Individuals who can perform an activity only with difficulty, pain, or risk may still meet the definition. The employee’s testimony regarding glare, halos from headlights, difficulty reading signs, impaired depth perception, and lingering post-exposure visual strain provided sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that her night blindness substantially limited her ability to see.

The court also rejected the county’s argument that the employee’s accommodation request was not made in good faith. Although the employee expressed safety concerns about working alone at night, she also specifically raised to the county her night blindness and explained its impact on her ability to drive. Because credibility determinations belong to the jury, the Sixth Circuit declined to disturb the jury’s verdict.

Next Steps

The Sixth Circuit’s ruling highlights several important considerations for employers:

• Difficulty seeing at night or driving in low-light conditions may be treated as a legitimate concern, and therefore worth exploring through the interactive process.
• Employers may want to evaluate disability-related issues on a case-by-case basis since they are often nuanced and fact-specific.  
• Employees with a disability may still occasionally perform a task, but if they do so with greater difficulty, risk, or stress, this still may implicate the ADA.
• Consider providing training for frontline managers regarding how to respond when employees raise disability-related issues and escalate concerns appropriately to remain compliant with the ADA.
• Be mindful of the timing and reaction to accommodation requests. Adverse actions taken shortly after an employee raises a disability concern may be scrutinized more heavily.

Ogletree Deakins will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the Employment Law, Kentucky, Leaves of Absence, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee blogs as new information becomes available.

Heather G. Ptasznik is a shareholder in Ogletree Deakins’ Detroit office.

This article was co-authored by Leah J. Shepherd, who is a writer in Ogletree Deakins’ Washington, D.C., office.