Excargodog

Ah, but read the fine print. The law does not REQUIRE you to actually HAVE a disability to come under the law's protection, they require only that the employer PERCEIVE what you have as a disability.

And if they are allowing the testing to influence their hiring decisions, it is fairly apparent that they believe that certain test results constitute a disability.

The original Supreme Court case with UAL vs Sutton - in which UAL won - stated that the Sutton sisters were not disabled and could therefore not sue under the ADA despite their uncorrected visual acuity beyond United's standards because they indeed had valid FAA medical exams. Subsequently the ADA was specifically amended to address the issue of candidates who were not truly disabled but were perceived by employers to be disabled and discriminated against as an applicant because of that perception.
The amended law required the employer to show a business necessity for such testing. And after that amendment, UAL requiring visual acuity greater than demanded by the Federal Air Surgeon's office was quickly eliminated.

Again, not a lawyer, but I could foresee an expensive class action suit coming. If I were a company doing such testing I'd want to have real good proof of a business necessity to do such testing. Also a reason to tell the judge why I have a business necessity for this while my competitors - who are not doing similar testing - do not.