one- eye disability

The company refused to employ a probationary employee to driver position because he’s monocular (one-eyed) and no longer qualified under the employer's vision set of rules. The probationary employee sued claiming that the employer violated the Disabilities Act since the possibility of hiring him as regular employee was already out of the question.
According to the Court, for a monocular individual to show that his or her impairment is a disability, the impairment must prevent or severely restrict use of his or her eyesight compared with how unimpaired individuals normally use their eyesight in daily life. The Court stated that the individual was not substantially limited because they could drive, read, use tools, and play sports.
The employee claimed that the employer regarded all monocular individuals as being disabled. The Court disagreed and stated that, although the employer's vision protocol screens out all monocular individuals, that does not necessarily mean that the employer regarded them as disabled. The Court further noted that there is nothing improperly discriminatory about a protocol that qualifies individuals for safe driving of particular vehicles on the basis of a condition that is perceived to be limiting to their ability to see, but not substantially limiting.
The employer appealed and suggested to pay all casualties and offer some sort of rewards in exchange of employee’s regularization process. Also, the employer maintained that employee’s status are merely probationary and thus, providing them the privilege to retain such kind of employees. The employee was not amenable to such conditions. He insisted to have a regular position in driving since looking for another job would be much difficult for him.