29 C.F.R. § 1630.2

Section 1630.2(o) treats reasonable accommodation as an open-ended concept that may include a leave of absence for medical treatment when appropriate, unless leave would impose undue hardship.

Schmidt v. Safeway Inc. · filed 1994-06-09(o)

The term “reasonable accommodation” is an open-ended one. The statutes and regulations offer examples, but caution that the term is not limited to those examples. 42 U.S.C. § 12111(9); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o); 29 C.F.R. Pt. 1630, App. (interpretive regulations, section 1630.2(o)); OAR 839-06-245. An employer may, “in appropriate circumstances, have to consider the provision of leave to an employee as a reasonable accommodation, unless the provision of leave would impose an undue hardship.” 29 C.F.R. Pt. 1630, App. (EEOC interpretive regulations to Section 1630.15(b) and (c)). ... Although the interpretive regulations were not specifically directed at alcohol problems, I conclude the ADA may require an employer to provide a leave of absence to an employee with an alcohol problem, particularly if the employer would provide that accommodation to an employee with cancer or some other illness requiring medical treatment.

Section 1630.2(o) defines reasonable accommodation as modifications or adjustments that enable a qualified employee with a disability to perform essential job functions or enjoy equal employment benefits and privileges.

Harmer v. Virginia Electric & Power Co. · filed 1993-09-20(o)

As the Court reads the ADA, the purpose of reasonable accommodation is to allow a disabled employee to perform the essential functions of his job or to enable him to enjoy equal privileges of non-disabled employees, such as access to bathrooms and cafeterias, etc.

(p)(2)(v) treats an accommodation that adversely affects other employees’ ability to perform their jobs as an undue burden on the employer.

Mears v. Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. · filed 1995-09-05(p)(2)(v)

Since an accommodation that adversely impacts other employees’ ability to do their jobs is an undue burden on the employer, 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(p)(2)(v), it is unreasonable.

Section 1630.2(o) defines reasonable accommodation by reference to enabling employees with disabilities to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment, and the court held that a requested one-year leave was unreasonable as a matter of law.

Dockery v. North Shore Medical Center · filed 1995-12-04(o)

A reasonable accommodation is an accommodation that would “enable [the employer’s employees with disabilities] to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment as are enjoyed by employees without disabilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o). ... However, this Court concludes that, as a matter of law, an employer is not required to grant a one-year leave of absence, and such an accommodation is, on its face, unreasonable.

Section 1630.2(h)(1) defines a physical or mental impairment as a physiological disorder or condition that affects one or more body systems.

Scott v. Flaghouse, Inc. · filed 1997-10-16(h)(1)

According to regulations promulgated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), a “physical or mental impairment” is a physiological disorder or condition that affects one or more body systems. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1) (1996).

Section 1630.2(m) defines qualification through a two-step inquiry into job prerequisites and essential functions, while § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) defines reasonable accommodation as adjustments enabling a qualified individual with a disability to perform those functions.

Armijo v. Costco Wholesale Warehouse, Inc. · filed 2022-04-28(m) (o)(1)(ii)

the EEOC has promulgated 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m) to further elaborate upon the meaning of the term “qualified.” ... That subsection sets forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether the individual is qualified. A court first determines whether the individual satisfies the prerequisites of the job; more specifically, whether “the individual satisfies the requisite skill, experience, education and other job-related requirements of the employment position such individual holds or desires.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m). At step two, a court determines whether, “with or without reasonable accommodation,” the individual is able to “perform the essential functions of such position.” Id. ... Moreover, a reasonable accommodation must enable the employee to perform the duties of the position. ... see also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) (defining “reasonable accommodation” as “[m]odifications or adjustments to the work environment, or to the manner or circumstances under which the position held or desired is customarily performed, that enable an individual with a disability who is qualified to perform the essential functions of that position”).

Section 1630.2(h)(1) treats depression and anxiety diagnoses as mental impairments, § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) defines a reasonable accommodation by whether it enables essential job functions, and § 1630.2(o)(3) recognizes an interactive process for determining accommodation.

Armstead v. Anthem/ Elevance Health HR · filed 2024-09-23(h)(1) (o)(1)(ii) (o)(3)

Such diagnoses meet the EEOC definition of “mental” impairments. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1); Jones, 16 F. Supp. 3d at 632. ... A reasonable accommodation is one that enables the employee to perform the “essential functions” of her job. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii). ... Because the ADA requires employers to engage in an “interactive process” with employees requesting accommodations, 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3), engagement in that process would likewise constitute protected conduct. See 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a).

Section 1630.2(o) does not treat as reasonable an accommodation that eliminates an essential function of the job.

Monday · filed 2026-01-15(o)

An accommodation is unreasonable “if it requires eliminating an ‘essential’ function of the job.” ... Accordingly, the Court finds that there is no genuine dispute of material fact as to plaintiff’s ADA claim because: (1) plaintiff is not a “qualified individual” under the ADA; and (2) even if she was, plaintiff’s request for a “permanent” remote position is unreasonable.

Section 1630.2(o)(2) recognizes modified schedules as possible reasonable accommodations, but additional leave is not required in every case.

Rhoads v. Federal Deposit Insurance · filed 1997-02-22(o)(2)

This court is mindful that the use of accrued sick leave, part-time or modified work schedules may in some eases be an appropriate accommodation. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(2), § 1630.2(o) (Appendix). However, such accommodation was not required in this case.

Section 1630.2(g)(3) does not require a substantial limitation or a record of impairment to establish that an individual was regarded as disabled, while § 1630.2(r) requires an individualized, evidence-based finding of a significant risk of substantial harm rather than a speculative or remote risk.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Amsted Rail Co. · filed 2017-11-16(g)(3), (r)

As the emphasized language suggests, showing that an individual is regarded as disabled “does not require a showing of ah impairment that substantially limits a major life activity or a record of such an impairment.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(g)(3) (2012). ... “Direct Threat means a significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable. accommodation.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r) (2010). ... No reasonable jury could find Dr. Dirkers conducted an individualized assessment of each claimant’s ability to perform the job of chipper safely and came to a reasonable conclusion based on the best available medical evidence, the abnormal NCT result.- ... For these reasons, the EEOC is entitled to summary judgment on this issue.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires an employer to use an informal interactive process to identify disability-related limitations and possible accommodations, while § 1630.2(r) requires a direct-threat assessment to consider four specified risks and be individualized and based on current medical knowledge or the best available objective evidence.

Hale v. Johnson · filed 2017-03-28(o)(3), (r)

There are four factors to be considered in this analysis: (1) the duration of the risk; (2) the nature and severity of the potential harm; (3) the likelihood that the potential harm will occur; and (4) the imminence of the potential harm. ... An assessment of whether an employee poses a direct threat must be “individualized” to the employee’s abilities and job functions and “based on a reasonable medical judgment that relies on the most current medical knowledge and/or on the best available objective evidence.” ... Pursuant to federal regulation: To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the covered entity to initiate an informal, interactive process with the individual with a disability in need of the accommodation. This process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome these limitations.

(r) requires a direct-threat assessment to rely on reasonable medical judgment using current medical knowledge or the best available objective evidence.

Wurzel v. Whirlpool Corporation · filed 2012-04-27(r)

“This assessment shall be based on a reasonable medical judgment that relies on the most current medical knowledge and/or on the best available objective evidence.”

Section 1630.2(r) requires a direct-threat determination to rely on current medical knowledge or the best available objective evidence and an individualized assessment of the employee’s present ability to perform the job safely.

Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Echazabal · filed 2002-06-10(r)

The direct threat defense must be “based on a reasonable medical judgment that relies on the most current medical knowledge and/or the best available objective evidence,” and upon an expressly “individualized assessment of the individual’s present ability to safely perform the essential functions of the job,” reached after considering, among other things, the imminence of the risk and the severity of the harm portended.

Section 1630.2(r) permits an employer to consider disability-related risk only when it is a significant risk—meaning a high probability of substantial harm—not merely a slightly increased, speculative, or remote risk.

ESTATE OF · filed 1998-02-25(r)

The EEOC guidelines provide further insight: 23 An employer, however, is not permitted to deny an employment opportunity to an individual with a disability merely because of a slightly increased risk. The risk can only be considered when it poses a significant risk, i.e. high probability, of substantial harm; a speculative or remote risk is insufficient. 24 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r) (1996) (citations omitted). ... Thus, our analysis in the instant case must not consider the possibility of HIV transmission, but rather focus on the probability of transmission weighed with the other three factors of the Arline test.

Section 1630.2(r) defines a direct threat as a significant risk of substantial harm that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation and requires an individualized assessment of the individual's present ability to safely perform the essential job functions.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. AIC Security Investigation, Ltd. · filed 1993-03-05(r)

Direct threat is defined as “a significant risk of substantial harm to the health and safety of the individual or other that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.” A “direct threat” defense is to be evaluated on a individualized assessment of the individual’s present ability to safely perform the essential functions of the job. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r) (emphasis added).

Section 1630.2(r) defines a direct threat as a significant risk of substantial harm and requires considering whether reasonable accommodation can eliminate or reduce that risk to insignificant proportions.

Altman v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corp. · filed 1995-09-28(r)

A “direct threat” is defined as a “significant risk of substantial harm.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r). ... Although plaintiffs reinstatement as Chief of Medicine in January 1993 would have entailed a significant risk to the public’s health and safety, the defendants would have been obligated to reinstate plaintiff so long as that risk could have been eliminated or reduced to “insignificant” proportions by means of a reasonable accommodation. ... In short, the court concludes that plaintiff would have posed a “significant risk of substantial harm” to Metropolitan’s patients if defendants had restored him to his old post, and that none of the accommodations suggested by plaintiff would have eliminated that risk or reduced it to a manageable level; nor, in view of the considerable difficulties involved in monitoring a Chief of Service’s performance, can the defendants be faulted for fading to devise some other scheme to safeguard patients against the possible harmful consequences of a relapse. Accordingly, the court concludes that defendants were not required to reinstate plaintiff as Chief of Medicine in January of 1993.

Section 1630.2(r) treats a disability-related risk as a direct threat only when an individualized assessment shows a significant risk to health or safety; speculative or remote risks do not suffice.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kinney Shoe Corp. · filed 1996-02-14(r)

Thus, the court finds that Martinson’s seizures do not pose “a direct threat to the health or safety of other individuals in the workplace,” 42 U.S.C. § 12113(b), nor do they pose a direct threat to the safety of Martinson himself, 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r). The potential risk of injury, in the record before the court, simply cannot be characterized as a “high probability of substantial harm.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r) App. And given the court’s previous finding that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether Martinson could perform the essential functions of a shoe salesperson, summary judgment for Kinney is inappropriate on the grounds that Martinson is not “otherwise qualified.”

Section 1630.2(r) requires an individualized assessment of whether an individual poses a direct threat, considering the risk’s duration, severity, likelihood, and imminence.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Chrysler Corp. · filed 1996-03-06(r)

Contrary to Defendant’s assertion, it appears that Dr. Onder did not make an individualized assessment of Darling’s ability to perform safely the essential functions of the job, as required by 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r). The court finds that Defendant fails to provide evidence that Darling posed a direct threat to himself and/or his coworkers.

Section 1630.2(r) defines a direct threat as a significant risk of substantial harm that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation and lists four factors for assessing it.

Judice v. Hospital Serv. Dist. No. 1 · filed 1996-03-13(r)

First, a “direct threat” is one that poses “a significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.” ... Finally, the regulations set forth four factors to aid in the determination: (1) the duration of the risk; (2) the nature and severity of the potential harm; (3) likelihood that the potential harm will occur; and (4) the imminence of the potential harm. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r).

Whether an individual poses a direct threat is a fact-intensive question that must be decided by the trier of fact after weighing the nature and potential harm of the risk.

Rizzo v. Children's World Learning Centers, Inc. · filed 1996-05-24(r)

Whether one is a direct threat is a complicated, fact intensive determination, not a question of law. To determine whether a particular individual performing a particular act poses a direct risk to others is a matter for the trier of fact to determine after weighing all of the evidence about the nature of the risk and the potential harm.

Section 1630.2(r) requires an individualized, medically grounded direct-threat assessment and bars denying employment based only on a slight, speculative, or remote risk.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Dolphin Cruise Line, Inc. · filed 1996-06-27(r)

An employer ... is not permitted to deny an employment opportunity to an individual with disability merely because of a slightly increased risk.

Section 1630.2(r) defines a direct threat as a significant risk of substantial harm that requires an individualized assessment, and theoretical safety concerns without a reasonable probability of substantial harm do not establish that defense.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Texas Bus Lines · filed 1996-04-23(r)

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that the likelihood of potential harm as a result of Manuel’s weight impeding her service to her passengers is too remote and does not constitute grounds for a viable defense under the ADA. Despite Texas Bus Lines’ assertions that Manuel posed a “direct threat” to the “men, women and children passengers” that it transports, such theoretical concerns do not serve as a basis for the direct threat defense. An employer cannot assert a direct threat defense unless it makes a showing of a reasonable probability of substantial harm.

Section 1630.2(r) addresses whether reasonable accommodation could eliminate a direct threat; an employer's failure to investigate possible accommodations does not relieve the employee of proving that such accommodations were available.

Moses v. American Nonwovens, Inc. · filed 1996-09-27(r)

We are more troubled by the evidence that American failed to investigate possible accommodations. No language in the ADA mandates a pretermination investigation, but the EEOC advises that "the employer must determine whether a reasonable accommodation would ... eliminate" the direct threat. 29 C.F.R. §§ 1630.2(r), 1630.9, Interp. Guidance. We are persuaded that American's failure to investigate did not relieve Moses of his burden of producing probative evidence that reasonable accommodations were available.

Section 1630.2(r) defines a direct threat as a significant risk of substantial harm to an individual's or others' health or safety that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.

Crocker v. Marvin T. Runyon, Postmaster-General · filed 2000-03-22(r)

Under 42 U.S.C. § 12113(b), a finding that Crocker poses a direct safety threat to himself or others renders him not otherwise qualified. A direct threat entails “a significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r). Carrying heavy mail boxes and pushing a heavy hamper down a loading ramp every day while hopping on one leg, as Crocker proposes, would not be safe.

Section 1630.2(r) requires a direct-threat determination to rely on an individualized assessment of the individual's present ability to perform essential job functions, grounded in reasonable medical judgment using current medical knowledge or the best available objective evidence.

Lowe v. Alabama Power · filed 2001-03-23(r)

The implementing regulations require that: [t]he determination that an individual poses a "direct threat" shall be based on an individualized assessment of the individual's present ability to safely perform the essential functions of the job. This assessment shall be based on a reasonable medical judgment that relies on the most current medical knowledge and/or the best available objective evidence. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r). ... Alabama Power's decision that Lowe was not able to perform the mechanic position safely was not based, therefore, on particularized facts using the best available objective evidence as required by the regulations.

The regulation treats an employee who poses a danger to herself as not otherwise qualified, and the court applied that principle in assessing whether Benson posed such a danger.

Benson v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. · filed 2002-01-25(r)

“Similarly, if an employee poses a danger to herself, she is not deemed to be “otherwise qualified.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r) App. ... Thus, while Benson was experiencing on occasion extreme frustration, it is not clear that she posed a danger to herself.”

Section 1630.2(r) requires assessing the significance of a direct-threat risk by considering its duration, the nature and severity of the potential harm, the likelihood that the harm will occur, and the imminence of the harm.

Green v. Burton Rubber Processing, Inc. · filed 2002-02-21(r)

Assessment of the significance of the risk involves four factors: (1) duration of risk; (2) nature and severity of potential harm; (3) likelihood that potential harm will occur; and (4) imminence of potential harm.

Section 1630.2(r) treats an individual as not qualified when a disability-related significant safety risk cannot be eliminated by reasonable accommodation.

Schutts v. Bently Nevada Corp. · filed 1997-06-05(r)

An individual is not “qualified” if he poses a significant risk to others’ safety by virtue of a disability, which risk cannot be eliminated by reasonable accommodation. ... To this extent it would simply have been impossible for Plaintiff to make out a prima facie case.

Section 1630.2(r) generally requires an individualized assessment of an individual's present ability to safely perform essential job functions to determine whether the individual poses a direct threat, but an employer may rely on a group-based assessment when individualized assessment is impossible or impractical, provided it still proves a significant, unaccommodable risk.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Exxon Corp. · filed 1997-07-01(r)

According to the EEOC’s regulations, “the determination that an individual poses a ‘direct threat’ shall be based on an individualized assessment of the individual’s present ability to safely perform the essential functions of the job.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r). ... After analyzing the text of the ADA, the statute’s legislative history, ADA caselaw, and precedent under other employment discrimination statutes, the Court concludes that an employer need not satisfy the direct threat test via individualized assessment if that employer can prove that it is impossible or impractical to individually assess each employee affected by the policy. However, even if an employer shows that individualized assessment is impractical, he must still satisfy the direct threat test by showing that the group affected by the policy constitutes a significant risk of substantial harm to themselves or others that cannot be reduced or eliminated by reasonable accommodation.

Section 1630.2(r) permits denying public accommodations when an individual poses a direct threat—a significant risk of substantial harm to that person or others that reasonable accommodation cannot eliminate or reduce.

Jairath v. Dyer · filed 1997-07-24(r)

The ADA does not require a covered entity to extend its public accommodations to an individual where this would pose a “direct threat” or “significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of that individual or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r) (1984). The legality of defendant’s medical decision not to treat plaintiff therefore depends on whether the cosmetic surgery actually posed a “direct threat” to plaintiffs health. The determination whether surgery poses a “direct threat” to a patient’s health is based on a “Reasonable medical judgment that relies on the most current medical knowledge or the most available objective evidence ... to ascertain: the nature, duration, severity of the risk; the probability that the potential injury will occur; and whether reasonable modifications of policies, practices, or procedures will mitigate the risk.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2R (1984); 28 C.F.R. § 36.208(c).

Section 1630.2(r) requires an individualized, evidence-based assessment of direct threat and does not require an independent medical examination when clear objective evidence is available.

Den Hartog v. Wasatch Academy · filed 1997-10-28(r)

As Den Hartog correctly asserts, the determination that an individual poses a “direct threat” should be based on an “individualized assessment” that relies on “the most current medical knowledge and/or on the best available objective evidence.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r) (1996). (Emphasis added.) However, 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r) does not require an independent medical examination when the available objective evidence is clear. It uses the conjunctive “and/or” between medical knowledge and objective evidence.

Section 1630.2(r) requires an individualized assessment when determining whether an individual poses a direct threat; physicals and tests alone do not satisfy that requirement.

Dipol v. New York City Transit Authority · filed 1998-03-30(r)

The administration of the physicals and the tests conducted during Plaintiff’s examinations do not constitute an individualized assessment as contemplated by 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r).

Section 1630.2(r) permits a direct-threat assessment based on reasonable medical judgment using current medical knowledge or the best available objective evidence, and the risk must be significant.

Burroughs v. City of Springfield · filed 1998-12-28(r)

Nevertheless, a "direct threat" assessment may "be based on a reasonable medical judgment that relies on the most current medical knowledge and/or the best available objective evidence." 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r); ... A risk must be significant to constitute a direct threat. See Bragdon, 118 S. Ct. at 2210. ... The City's decision to remove Burroughs from duty was appropriately based on objective evidence and reasonable medical judgment.

Section 1630.2(r) defines a direct threat as a significant risk of substantial harm that reasonable accommodation cannot eliminate or reduce and requires evaluation of four risk factors; a speculative or remote risk is insufficient.

Hamlin v. Charter Township of Flint · filed 1999-01-08(r)

A direct threat means that there is “a significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r). To determine if an individual poses a direct threat, the trial court should evaluate the following factors: “(1) The duration of the risk; (2) The nature and severity of the potential harm; (3) The likelihood that the potential harm will occur; and (4) The imminence of the potential harm.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r). ... In addition, “[a]n employer ... is not permitted to deny an employment opportunity to an individual with a disability merely because of a slightly increased risk. The risk can only be considered when it poses a significant risk, i.e., high probability of substantial harm; a speculative or remote risk is insufficient.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r) (citations omitted). The proof tendered in the present case did not establish as a matter of law that there was a high probability of potential harm because of Hamlin’s physical limitations, or that the alleged risk was anything more than speculative or remote. Flint simply relied upon its own “subjective perceptions” that all line officers in the Fire Department do nothing other than directly fight fires. There was thus no error in the district court’s reserving this issue for the jury.

Section 1630.2(r) requires an individualized direct-threat inquiry focused on whether the employee poses a significant risk of harm and whether reasonable accommodation can eliminate that risk without undue hardship.

Nunes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Mike Black Rita Silva · filed 1999-01-28(r)

In evaluating a direct threat defense, a court should first consider whether the employer has demonstrated that the employee cannot perform the job without a significant risk of harm.

A direct-threat assessment may rely on reasonable medical judgment using the most current medical knowledge or the best available objective evidence, and the risk must be significant.

Burroughs v. City of Springfield · filed 1999-02-04(r)

Nevertheless, a “direct threat” assessment may “be based on a reasonable medical judgment that relies on the most current medical knowledge and/or the best available objective evidence.” ... A risk must be significant to constitute a direct threat.

When a safety requirement tends to screen out people with disabilities, the employer bears the burden of proving that the individual is a direct threat.

Rizzo v. Children's World Learning Centers, Incorporated, Doing Business as Cwlc, Incorporated · filed 1999-04-15(r)

The law of Rizzo I, putting the burden of proof on the defendant, applies only in cases concerning "safety requirements that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability or a class of individuals with disabilities." ... In other words, the safety requirement instituted by CWLC was that any teacher whose responsibilities included van driving be able to discriminate spoken words. This is obviously a safety requirement which tends to screen out a class of individuals with hearing disabilities. In such a case, the defendant now bears the burden of proof that the employee poses a direct threat to the health or safety of herself or others. ... We hold that, in accord with the federal regulations, when a court finds that the safety requirements imposed tend to screen out the disabled, then the burden of proof shifts to the employer, to prove that the employee is, in fact, a direct threat.

Section 1630.2(r) requires an individualized assessment of an individual's present ability to safely perform the essential functions of the job when determining whether the individual poses a direct threat.

Kapche v. City of San Antonio · filed 1999-05-20(r)

Unfortunately, absent from our written reasons in either Chandler or Daugherty is any attempt to square this outcome with the EEOC regulation which requires, seemingly without exception, the individualized assessment of all job applicants and employees. ... Based on our de novo review of the summary judgment evidence, we conclude that the City’s physicians did not conduct an individualized assessment of Kapche’s present ability to perform safely the essential functions of a police officer.

Section 1630.2(r) requires the direct-threat determination to be based on an individualized assessment of the person’s present ability to safely perform the job’s essential functions, using current medical knowledge or the best available objective evidence.

Kapche v. City of San Antonio · filed 2002-08-30(r)

[The “direct threat”] criterion ordinarily requires "an individualized assessment of the individual's present ability to safely perform the essential functions of the job," 29 CFR § 1630.2(r) (1998), "based on medical or other objective evidence," Bragdon, 524 U.S., at 649, 118 S.Ct. 2196 (citing School Bd. of Nassau Cty. v. Arline, 480 U.S. 273, 288, 107 S.Ct. 1123, 94 L.Ed.2d 307 (1987)); see 29 CFR § 1630.2(r) (1998) (assessment of direct threat "shall be based on a reasonable medical judgment that relies on the most current medical knowledge and/or on the best available objective evidence").

Subsection (r) requires an individualized assessment of whether a person poses a direct threat, based on reasonable medical judgment using the most current medical knowledge or best available objective evidence.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Browning-Ferris, Inc. · filed 2002-09-17(r)

As noted above, the ADA requires employers to conduct an individualized assessment of whether an individual with a disability poses a direct threat of harm before taking an adverse employment action. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r). This assessment must be “based on a reasonable medical judgment that relies on the most current medical knowledge and/or the best available objective evidence.”

Section 1630.2(r) requires an employer invoking the direct-threat defense to make an individualized, medically supported assessment using current medical knowledge or objective evidence and to consider the duration, severity, likelihood, and imminence of harm.

Echazabal v. Chevron Usa, Inc. Irwin Industries, Inc. · filed 2003-07-23(r)

Before excluding an individual from employment as a direct threat, an employer must demonstrate that it has made an "individualized assessment" of the employee's ability to perform the essential functions of the job, "based on a reasonable medical judgment that relies on the most current medical knowledge and/or on the best available objective evidence." 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r). ... Before refusing to hire Echazabal, Chevron was required, under the terms of 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r), to consider the severity, imminence, and potential likelihood of harm. Based on consideration of these factors, Chevron had the burden of demonstrating at least a "significant risk of substantial harm" to Echazabal. Id.

Section 1630.2(r) requires a direct-threat determination to rest on a reasonable, individualized medical assessment using current medical knowledge or the best available objective evidence, considering the risk’s duration, severity, likelihood, and imminence.

Darnell, Brent v. Thermafiber Inc · filed 2005-07-29(r)

The determination that he poses a direct threat must be premised upon “a reasonable medical judgment that relies on the most current medical knowledge and/or the best available objective evidence, and upon an expressly individualized assessment of the individual’s present ability to safely perform the essential functions of the job.” Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal, 536 U.S. 73, 86 (2002) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r) (internal quotations omitted)). The assessment should take into account: (1) the duration of the risk, (2) the nature and severity of the potential harm, (3) the likelihood that the potential harm will occur, and (4) the imminence of the potential harm. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r); see also Chevron, 536 U.S. at 86; Emerson v. N. States Power Co., 256 F.3d 506, 514 (7th Cir. 2001).

Section 1630.2(r) treats the ADA direct-threat defense as a term of art requiring an individualized, medically informed assessment using four risk factors, and it does not govern discipline for an employee's actual workplace threat.

Sista v. CDC Ixis North America, Inc. · filed 2006-04-13(r)

The "poses a direct threat defense" requires an "individualized assessment of the employee's present ability to safely perform the essential functions of the job . . . based on a reasonable medical judgment that relies on the most current medical knowledge and/or on the best available objective evidence." 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r). ... The poses a direct threat defense is not applicable when an employee actually makes a threat, despite the common use of the word "threat"; "poses a direct threat" is a term of art under the ADA, reserved for circumstances not presented by this case.

Section 1630.2(r) treats a direct threat as a significant risk of substantial harm to the individual's health or safety that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.

Taylor, Lorenzo v. Rice, Condoleeza · filed 2006-06-27(r)

“Direct threat” in this context “means a significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual . . . that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r); see also 42 U.S.C. § 12111(3). ... As the district court recognized, to evaluate “the individual’s present ability to safely perform the essential functions of the job,” id. (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r)) (internal quotation mark omitted), we must first determine what functions are essential – a matter the parties contest.

The regulation defines a direct threat as a significant risk of substantial harm that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation and requires an individualized assessment; the court applied that standard to find that the plaintiff's near-blindness posed a direct threat to her own safety.

Clayborne v. Potter · filed 2006-09-11

Direct Threat means a significant risk of substantial harm to the health and safety of the individual or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation. ... Further, Ms. Clayborne was unqualified because her near-blindness posed a direct threat to her own safety.

Section 1630.2(r) requires an employer asserting a direct-threat defense to base it on an individualized assessment supported by reasonable medical judgment and the best available objective evidence, considering the specified risk factors.

Taylor v. Hampton Roads Regional Jail Authority · filed 2008-05-05(r)

The burden lies on the employer to show that the disabled employee would represent a direct threat. ... The determination that an individual poses a “direct threat” shall be based on an individualized assessment of the individual’s present ability to safely perform the essential functions of the job. This assessment shall be based on a reasonable medical judgment that relies on the most current medical knowledge and/or on the best available objective evidence. In determining whether an individual would post a direct threat, the factors to be considered include: ... (1) The duration of the risk; ... (2) The nature and severity of the potential harm; ... (3) The likelihood that the potential harm will occur; and ... (4) The imminence of the potential harm.

Section 1630.2(r) requires a direct-threat determination to consider the duration, severity, likelihood, and imminence of the potential harm.

Justice v. Crown Cork and Seal Co., Inc. · filed 2008-06-03(r)

Applying the factors set forth in 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r), while the risk of harm may have been permanent and the severity of the harm great, a reasonable jury could conclude that the likelihood of the harm was extremely small and that Justice therefore did not pose a “direct threat” to the safety of himself or others in the Worland plant.

Section 1630.2(r) requires a direct-threat determination to assess the duration, nature and severity, likelihood, and imminence of potential harm when deciding whether a disability presents a significant safety risk.

McCann v. City of Eugene · filed 2011-06-21(r)

Existence of a significant risk is determined by considering such factors as duration of the risk, nature and severity of the risk, likelihood of potential harm, and imminence of potential harm. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r).

A direct-threat finding requires an individualized assessment of the individual’s present ability to safely perform the essential job functions.

Eldredge v. City of St. Paul · filed 2011-08-15(r)

The determination that an individual poses a direct threat must be based on an individualized assessment of the individual’s present ability to safely perform the essential functions of the job.

Section 1630.2(r) defines a direct threat as a significant risk of substantial harm to an individual’s or others’ health or safety that reasonable accommodation cannot eliminate.

Johnsqn v. City of Blaine · filed 2013-08-26(r)

A direct threat is a significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual or others that cannot be eliminated by reasonable accommodations. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r).

Section 1630.2(r) requires an employer assessing whether a direct threat presents a significant risk to consider the risk’s duration, potential harm’s nature and severity, likelihood, and imminence.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Rexnord Industries, LLC · filed 2013-08-30(r)

To determine whether a risk is significant, the employer must consider: (1) the duration of the risk, (2) the nature and severity of the potential harm, (3) the likelihood that the potential harm will occur, and (4) the imminence of the potential harm.

The regulation requires a direct-threat assessment to rest on a reasonable medical judgment using current medical knowledge or the best available objective evidence.

Bloomfield v. Whirlpool Corp. · filed 2013-11-27(r)

This does not mean, however, that the IME was unlawful. The ADA permits an employer to require an employee to undergo a medical evaluation if the employer has a reasonable concern that the employee poses a direct threat. In most cases, the employer is not permitted to conclude on its own that the employee poses a direct threat; the employer must have “a reasonable medical judgment that relies on the most current medical knowledge and/or on the best available objective evidence.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r).

The direct-threat determination must be based on an individualized assessment of the individual's present ability to safely perform the essential functions of the job.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American Tool & Mold, Inc. · filed 2014-04-16(r)

“[t]he determination that an individual poses a ‘direct threat’ shall be based on an individualized assessment of the individual’s present ability to safely perform the essential functions of the job.”

Section 1630.2(r) requires a direct-threat assessment to rely on reasonable medical judgment using the most current medical knowledge or best available objective evidence, and it covers threats to the employee himself.

Nevitt v. United States Steel Corp. · filed 2014-05-05(r)

The regulations require that a covered entity’s assessment of whether an individual poses a ‘direct threat’ “shall be based on a reasonable medical judgment that relied on the most current medical knowledge and/or the best available objective evidence.” ... The roughly three-month interval between Dr. Poczatek and Dr. Cordover’s evaluations and when Dr. Szabo imposed restrictions on Nevitt is not long enough to compel the court to make a similar determination on the medical examination and inquiry claim.

A direct threat is a significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.

Archerda v. Department of Defense · filed 2014-07-11(r)

Generally, a disability-related inquiry or medical examination may be “job-related and consistent with business necessity” if an employer “has a reasonable belief, based on objective evidence, that: (1) an employee’s ability to perform essential job functions will be impaired by a medical condition; or (2) an employee will pose a direct threat due to a medical condition.” Watkins, 2001 WL 1097442, at *2. “Direct threat means a significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r). ... The agency has not presented sufficient evidence to satisfy the second prong, that it had a reasonable belief, based on objective evidence, that the appellant posed a direct threat due to a medical condition. There is no evidence that the appellant was violent or posed a significant risk of substantial harm.

Section 1630.2(r) requires an individualized direct-threat assessment based on reasonable medical judgment and the best available objective evidence, not merely an employer's lay intuition.

Kroll v. White Lake Ambulance Auth. · filed 2014-08-19(r)

An assessment of whether an employee poses a direct threat must be “individualized” to the employee’s abilities and job functions and “based on a reasonable medical judgment that relies on the most current medical knowledge and/or on the best available objective evidence.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r). ... For the regulation to have any meaning, however, an employer must do more than follow its own lay intuition regarding the threat posed by an employee’s potential medical condition.

Section 1630.2(r) defines a “direct threat” as a significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the person or others that reasonable accommodation cannot eliminate or reduce.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Beverage Distributors Co. · filed 2015-03-16(r)

A “direct threat” involves “a significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the [person] or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r). ... Beverage Distributors should have avoided liability if it had reasonably believed the job would entail a direct threat; proof of an actual threat should have been unnecessary.

Section 1630.2(r) requires an individualized direct-threat assessment that considers the duration, nature and severity, likelihood, and imminence of the potential harm.

Jordan v. City of Union City · filed 2015-03-30(r)

The direct threat defense requires a degree of individualized assessment that is lacking here. "In determining whether an individual would pose a direct threat, the factors to be considered include: (1) The duration of the risk; (2) The nature and severity of the potential harm; (3) The likelihood that the potential harm will occur; and (4) The imminence of the potential harm.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r); ... As a sufficient individualized assessment of Plaintiffs disability based on medical evaluation or comparable objective information was not performed here, Union City cannot avail itself of the direct threat defense.

Section 1630.2(r) defines a direct threat as a significant risk of substantial harm to an individual's or others' health or safety that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.

In the Matter of Paul Williams, Township of Lakewood · filed 2016-01-25(r)

Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r), the term "[d]irect threat means a significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation."

(r) defines a direct threat as a significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual or others that reasonable accommodation cannot eliminate or reduce.

Henschel v. Clare County Road Commission · filed 2016-03-10(r)

Under the EEOC’s regulations, “Direct Threat means a significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r). Under the “direct threat” jurisprudence, an employer need not make a reasonable accommodation if it would still result in a risk of harm to the employee seeking the accommodation. Essentially, the rule provides that it would be unreasonable to allow an employer to threaten the health and safety of himself and others. Here, Henschel’s inability to move the excavator while carrying the boom in a stable position could create a situation that threatens his safety (e.g., if the excavator were to become unbalanced and topple) or the safety of anyone in the vicinity of the workplace. The testimony of experienced operators and the excavator manual attest to situations where this situation could actualize. Summary judgment for Defendant is warranted.

Section 1630.2(r) defines a direct threat as a significant risk of substantial harm that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation, and the court treated the absence of a direct threat as not automatically establishing that an employee is qualified.

Bruzzese v. Lynch · filed 2016-06-08(r)

“Direct threat” is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “a significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r). ... As a matter of law, Turk’s permanent -reassignment of plaintiff did not constitute illegal discrimination because plaintiff has reasonably been determined to be .not “qualified” to be a special agent carrying a gun. While it is true that the question of qualification is often blended with the question of whether an individual poses a “direct threat,” because an individual does not constitute a “direct threat” does not render that individual qualified.

Section 1630.2(r) requires a direct-threat determination to be based on an individualized assessment of the person's present ability to perform the job safely, using current medical knowledge or the best available objective evidence and specified risk factors.

Littlefield v. State, ex rel. Department of Public Safety · filed 2016-07-15(r)

“Direct threat” means a significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r). The determination that an individual poses a “direct threat” is based on an individualized assessment of the individual’s present ability to safely perform the essential functions of the job. This assessment is based on a reasonable medical judgment that relies on the most current medical knowledge and/or on the best available objective evidence. In determining whether an individual would pose a direct threat, the factors to be considered include: (1) The duration of the risk; (2) The nature and severity of the potential harm; (3) The likelihood that the potential harm will occur; and (4) The imminence of the potential harm.

Section 1630.2(r) defines a direct threat as a significant risk of substantial harm that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation and requires an individualized assessment based on current medical knowledge or the best available objective evidence.

Hernandez-Torres v. Department of the Army · filed 2016-09-12(r)

“Direct threat means a significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r). Discrimination law requires an agency to conduct an individualized assessment of an employee’s qualifications in determining whether an employee poses a direct threat because of a disability. McAlexander v. Department of Defense, 105 M.S.P.R. 384, ¶¶14-15 (2007). An individualized assessment is “based on a reasonable medical judgment that relies on the most current medical knowledge and/or on the best available objective evidence.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r).

Section 1630.2(r) defines a direct threat as a significant risk of substantial harm to an individual's or others' health or safety that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.

Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. McLeod Health, Inc. · filed 2019-01-31(r)

A “direct threat” is “a significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r). ... The correct way to apply the EEOC’s enforcement guidance in a case like this is to begin by asking: does the relevant job function (here, navigating to and within McLeod’s campuses) qualify as essential? If the answer is yes, we then ask whether the employee is medically capable of performing the function without posing a direct threat to herself or others—i.e., whether the employee can perform the function safely. ... A reasonable jury could conclude that when McLeod required Whitten to take a medical exam, the company lacked a reasonable belief—based on objective evidence—that Whitten’s medical condition had left her unable to navigate to and within the company’s campuses without posing a direct threat to her own safety.

Section 1630.2(r) requires a direct-threat defense to rest on current medical knowledge or the best available objective evidence, an individualized assessment of the person's ability to perform the job safely, and proof that reasonable accommodation cannot eliminate the risk.

U.S. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Gulf Logistics Operating, Inc. · filed 2019-04-04(r)

"The direct threat defense must be 'based on a reasonable medical judgment that relies on the most current medical knowledge and/or the best available objective evidence,' and upon an expressly 'individualized assessment of the individual's present ability to safely perform the essential functions of the job[.]' " ... Plaintiff correctly points out that in order to plead a direct threat defense, the defendant must also show that the risk cannot be eliminated by reasonable accommodation, and in this case defendant has not provided any evidence to show that it considered any reasonable accommodations for Mr. Gunderson. Therefore, defendant has failed to establish the direct threat defense at this stage.

The direct-threat defense requires an individualized assessment based on reasonable medical judgment and current medical or objective evidence.

Lundvall v. Land O'Lakes, Inc. · filed 2020-02-18(r)

Land O’Lakes has not met its burden in showing that Lundvall’s employment was terminated based on an “individualized assessment” based on a “reasonable medical judgment” that he was a direct threat.

Section 1630.2(r) requires a direct-threat determination to rest on current medical knowledge or the best available objective evidence and an individualized assessment of the individual's present ability to safely perform the essential functions of the job.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. T&T Subsea, LLC · filed 2020-04-29(r)

“The direct threat defense must be ‘based on a reasonable medical judgment that relies on the most current medical knowledge and/or the best available objective evidence,’ and upon an expressly ‘individualized assessment of the individual’s present ability to safely perform the essential functions of the job.’” Id. (quoting Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Echazabal, 536 U.S. 73, 86 (2002) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r)) (brackets omitted).

Section 1630.2(r) defines a direct threat as a significant risk of substantial harm that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation and requires an individualized, objectively supported assessment.

Sutherland v. Edison Chouest Offshore, Inc · filed 2020-09-10(r)

The EEOC defines a “direct threat” as “a significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.” ... Whether an employer appropriately makes a direct threat determination depends on first, whether defendant conducted a “meaningful assessment” that is individualized and based on the essential functions of the job, and second, whether that assessment led the employer to reasonably conclude that the employee posed a threat to the safety of himself or others “based on a reasonable medical judgment that relies on the most current medical knowledge and/or the best available objective evidence.” ... Plaintiff did not present evidence showing that Dr. Duet’s conclusion that Sutherland posed a direct threat to himself or others in the master’s job was objectively unreasonable.

Section 1630.2(r) requires a direct-threat determination to rest on an individualized assessment of the person’s present ability to perform essential job functions, supported by reasonable medical judgment using current medical knowledge or the best available objective evidence.

Krehbiel v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. · filed 2020-09-11(r)

The “direct threat” determination “shall be based on an individualized assessment of the individual’s present ability to safely perform the essential functions of the job. This assessment shall be based on a reasonable medical judgment that relies on the most current medical knowledge and/or on the best available objective evidence.”

Section 1630.2(r) treats a direct threat as a significant risk of substantial harm that cannot be eliminated by reasonable accommodation.

Hopman v. Union Pacific Railroad · filed 2020-09-24(r)

To establish the affirmative defense of direct threat, Union Pacific must prove a significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of Mr. Hopman or other persons that cannot be eliminated by reasonable accommodation. 42 U.S.C. § 12111(3); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r); E.E.O.C. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 477 F.3d 561, 571 (8th Cir. 2007). The party asserting the affirmative defense of direct threat must prove that, at the time it took the action that it justifies with the defense, it had conducted “an individualized direct threat analysis” that relied on “the ‘best current medical or other objective evidence’ in order to ‘protect disabled individuals from discrimination based on prejudice, stereotypes, or unfounded fear.’” E.E.O.C. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 477 F.3d at 571 (quoting Nunes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 164 F.3d 1243, 1248 (9th Cir. 1999)(citing Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624, (1998); Sch. Bd. of Nassau County, Fla. v. Arline, 480 U.S. 273, (1987))). Factors an employer must consider in performing an individualized direct threat analysis include the duration of risk, the nature and severity of the potential harm, the likelihood that the potential harm will occur, and the imminence of the potential harm. Id.

Section 1630.2(r) requires a direct-threat determination to consider the risk’s duration, potential harm’s nature and severity, likelihood, and imminence.

Howard v. Norfolk Southern Corporation · filed 2020-09-17(r)

“In determining whether an individual would pose a direct threat, the factors to be considered include: (1) the duration of the risk; (2) the nature and severity of the potential harm; (3) the likelihood that the potential harm will occur; and (4) the imminence of the potential harm.”

A direct-threat determination must be based on an individualized assessment of the employee’s present ability to perform safely, using current medical judgment and objective evidence.

Bailey v. Metal-Fab, Inc. · filed 2020-10-15(r)

With respect to the duration, nature, and likelihood of the risk, a jury could find that Defendant lacked objective evidence of a significant risk to health or safety. Plaintiff cites evidence that by the time of her termination, she had been seizure-free for nearly a month because her seizures were then being controlled by medication. Although no evidence is cited that Defendant was made aware of this fact, the regulations require an employer claiming a direct threat to consider the employee’s “present ability” to perform safely based on “a reasonable medical judgment that relies on the most current medical knowledge” or other objective evidence. 29 C.F.R. §1630.2. A reasonable jury could find Defendant could have and should have sought a current medical opinion concerning the effect of Plaintiff’s medication on her seizures before it terminated her.

Section 1630.2's direct-threat framework requires considering the duration, nature and severity, likelihood, and imminence of potential harm when assessing whether a disability poses a workplace safety threat.

Pontinen v. United States Steel Corporation · filed 2021-03-08

In order to determine whether an employee’s disability poses a “direct threat” to himself or others in the workplace, four factors must be analyzed: (1) the duration of the risk; (2) the nature and severity of the potential harm; (3) the likelihood that potential harm will occur; and (4) the imminence of potential harm.” Stragapede v. City of Evanston, Ill., 865 F.3d 861, 866 (7th Cir. 2017); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2.

Section 1630.2(r) includes a risk to the employee's own health or safety within the definition of a direct threat and requires the employer's determination to be based on reasonable medical judgment using current medical knowledge or the best available objective evidence.

Bosarge v. Mobile Area Water & Sewer Service · filed 2022-01-24(r)

The applicable regulations have expanded the definition of a direct threat to include a risk to the health or safety of the employee himself. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r). An employer’s determination that an individual poses a direct threat must be based on “reasonable medical judgment that relies on the most current medical knowledge and/or on the best available objective evidence.” See id.

Section 1630.2(r) defines a direct threat as a significant risk of substantial harm that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation and requires an individualized, evidence-based assessment considering four risk factors.

Pontinen v. United States Steel Corporati · filed 2022-02-11(r)

So, what is a direct threat? That term “means a significant risk of substantial harm … that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r) (2012); see also Branham, 392 F.3d at 905–06. Any determination that someone poses a direct threat must rely on an “individualized assessment of the individual’s present ability to safely perform the essential functions of the job.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r). In turn, “a reasonable medical judgment that relies on the most current medical knowledge and/or on the best available objective evidence” must inform the assessment. Id. The assessment must consider: “(1) [t]he duration of the risk; (2) [t]he nature and severity of the potential harm; (3) [t]he likelihood that the potential harm will occur; and (4) [t]he imminence of the potential harm.”

The regulation requires a direct-threat determination to consider the duration, nature and severity, likelihood, and imminence of the potential harm, using a reasonable medical judgment based on current medical knowledge or the best available objective evidence.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Joseph's/Candler Health System, Inc. · filed 2022-03-03(r)

An employer “must decide whether an employee poses a direct threat based on a reasonable medical judgment that relies on the most current medical knowledge and/or the best available objective evidence, and upon an expressly individualized assessment of the individual’s present ability to safely perform the essential functions of the job.” ... To determine whether an individual would pose a direct threat, four factors must be considered: “(1) [t]he duration of the risk; (2) [t]he nature and severity of the potential harm; (3) [t]he likelihood that the potential harm will occur; and (4) [t]he imminence of the potential harm.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r); see also Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal, 536 U.S. 73, 86 (2002) (quoting 29 C.F.R. 1630.2(r)); Doe v. Dekalb Cnty. Sch. Dist., 145 F.3d at 1446 (considering (1) “the nature of the risk (how the disease is transmitted)”; (2) “the duration of the risk (how long is the carrier infectious)”; (3) “the severity of the risk (what is the potential harm to third parties)”; and (4) “the probabilities the disease will be transmitted and will cause varying degrees of harm.”) (quoting Sch. Bd. of Nassau Cnty. v. Arline, 480 U.S. 273, 288 (1987)).

Section 1630.2(r) requires a direct-threat determination to rest on an individualized assessment using reasonable medical judgment and the best current objective evidence, considering the duration, severity, likelihood, and imminence of potential harm.

Anderson v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co · filed 2022-04-11(r)

An employer’s determination that an employee would pose a direct threat must: ... In determining whether an individual would pose a direct threat, the factors to be considered include: ... (4) The imminence of the potential harm. ... Moreover, as the District Court concluded, NSRC reasonably considered Anderson a direct threat under § 1630.2’s four-factor risk analysis. ... The duration of the risk is thus indefinite. ... the high stakes involved mean that the District Court was right to regard the risk as significant. ... thus, the risk is imminent.

Section 1630.2(r) defines a direct threat and requires an individualized assessment based on current medical knowledge or the best available objective evidence, considering specified risk factors.

Byrd v. Outokumpu Stainless, USA, LLC · filed 2022-06-14(r)

“Direct Threat means a significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r) (2021). The determination that an individual poses a “direct threat” shall be based on an individualized assessment of the individual’s present ability to safely perform the essential functions of the job. This assessment shall be based on a reasonable medical judgment that relies on the most current medical knowledge and/or on the best available objective evidence. ... Id. (emphasis added). The defendant says that OHC “conducted an individualized assessment,” (Doc. 36 at 19), but the Court cannot agree. ... The Court concludes that the foregoing cases accurately reflect the proper analysis of “direct threat” arguments in the context of prescribed medication. ... OHC’s reports do not establish as a matter of fact or law that the plaintiff was a direct threat and thus not a qualified individual.

Section 1630.2(r) requires a direct-threat determination to rest on an individualized assessment of the individual's present ability to perform essential job functions safely, informed by current medical knowledge or the best objective evidence and four specified risk factors.

Carter v. Union Pacific Railroad LLC · filed 2022-06-03(r)

The determination that an individual poses a “direct threat” shall be based on an individualized assessment of the individual’s present ability to safely perform the essential functions of the job. This assessment shall be based on a reasonable medical judgment that relies on the most current medical knowledge and/or on the best available objective evidence. In determining whether an individual would pose a direct threat, the factors to be considered include: ... (1) The duration of the risk; ... (2) The nature and severity of the potential harm; ... (3) The likelihood that the potential harm will occur; and ... (4) The imminence of the potential harm. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r). ... Defendant asserts that the summary judgment facts present no genuine issue whether plaintiff safely could perform the essential functions of his job. The court agrees. The summary judgment facts establish that the Yardman position was a safety-critical job requiring plaintiff to operate trains remotely. It’s undisputed that the position requires good concentration, focus, alertness, insight, judgment, and impulse control. Also, the job duty of operating a locomotive by remote control poses danger and a risk of harm for employees, the public, property, and the environment. After plaintiff sustained his head injury, defendant conducted a FFD evaluation of plaintiff to determine whether he still could perform his job safely. Three doctors—Dr. Hughes, Dr. Frankel, and Dr. Holland—conducted individualized reviews of plaintiff’s medical records. ... These undisputed facts leave no genuine issue whether defendant’s decision to impose five-year work restrictions on plaintiff was “objectively reasonable.”

Section 1630.2(r) defines a direct threat as a significant risk of substantial harm to an individual or others that reasonable accommodation cannot eliminate or reduce; a mere verbal disagreement without threatening or violent behavior is not enough to establish one.

Martin v. United States Postal Service · filed 2022-07-20(r)

“Direct Threat means a significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r); see Archerda, 121 M.S.P.R. 314, ¶ 30. ... Here, the “back-and-forth” alleged by the station manager describes a mere verbal disagreement between the appellant and his supervisor, without any suggestion that the appellant behaved in a threatening or violent manner. 2 HCD (testimony of the station manager). Therefore, we find that this was an improper basis to require the appellant to submit additional medical information under the Rehabilitation Act. See Archerda, 121 M.S.P.R. 314, ¶ 30; IAF, Tab 14 at 33-34.

Section 1630.2(r) defines a direct threat as a significant risk of substantial harm that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation, evaluated using the risk’s duration, severity, likelihood, and imminence through an individualized assessment.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Outokumpu Stainless Steel USA, LLC · filed 2022-09-01(r)

“Direct Threat means a significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.” ... “In determining whether an individual would pose a direct threat, the factors to be considered include: (1) the duration of the risk; (2) the nature and severity of the potential harm; (3) the likelihood that the potential harm will occur; and (4) the imminence of the potential harm.” ... “Notably, OTK’s motion does not address the relevant legal inquiry relating to the individual assessment required of an employer asserting a direct threat defense.”

Section 1630.2(r) defines a direct threat as a significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.

Litton v. Department of Justice · filed 2022-10-11(r)

Generally, a disability-related inquiry or medical examination may be job-related and consistent with business necessity if an employer has a reasonable belief, based on objective evidence, that (1) an employee’s ability to perform essential job functions will be impaired by a medical condition; or (2) an employee will pose a direct threat due to a medical condition. ... A direct threat means a significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r). ... Here, the agency’s inquiries were not due to any reasonable belief, based on objective evidence, that the appellant’s ability to perform his essential job functions was impaired by a medical condition or that he posed a direct threat due to a medical condition.

Section 1630.2(r) defines a direct threat as a significant risk of substantial harm to an individual or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.

Maibie v. United States Postal Service · filed 2022-12-21(r)

While an agency only may conduct an examination if it believes an employee poses a direct threat, it is not required to do so. In fact, the direct threat is a narrow exception to the general prohibition on an employer requiring employees to undergo medical exams or respond to medical inquiries. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(1)-(2); 29 C.F.R. §§ 1630.2(r), .13(b), .14(c). Thus, we find that the agency did not violation the Rehabilitation Act by failing to conduct a more exhaustive examination of the appellant’s physical ability to perform in the carrier position.

Section 1630.2(r) requires a direct-threat determination to focus on whether there is a significant risk of substantial harm, considering the duration, nature, severity, likelihood, and imminence of potential harm.

Baker v. Union Pacific Railroad Company · filed 2023-05-16(r)

To prove a direct threat, a defendant must prove a significant risk of substantial harm. The direct threat defense requires consideration of the duration, nature and severity, likelihood and/or imminence of potential harm.

Section 1630.2(r)'s direct-threat framework applies when discrimination is based on qualification standards or failure to accommodate and requires objective medical evidence.

TEDROW v. FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION · filed 2023-05-23(r)

That defense and its requirement of objective medical evidence comes into play when an employee claims that application of qualification standards and a failure to accommodate results in discrimination. ... Mr. Tedrow doesn’t advance claims based on qualification standards and failure to accommodate, so the School Corporation’s stated reasons aren’t a “direct threat” defense and a lack of objective medical evidence doesn’t undermine those reasons.

The direct-threat defense requires an individualized, particularized assessment of the risks posed or faced by the individual, based on current objective evidence rather than a categorical assumption.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Werner Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2023-03-31(r)

"Direct threat" is an affirmative defense on which the employer bears the burden of proof. E.E.O.C. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 477 F.3d 561, 571 (8th Cir. 2007). It requires "an individualized direct threat analysis that relies on the best current medical or other objective evidence in order to protect disabled individuals from discrimination based on prejudice, stereotypes, or unfounded fear." Id. (quotations omitted); see Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Echazabal, 536 U.S. 73, 86 (2002); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r). Factors to be considered include: (1) the duration of the risk; (2) the nature and severity of the potential harm; (3) the likelihood that the potential harm will occur; and (4) the imminence of the potential harm. Wal-Mart, 477 F.3d at 571; 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r). ... But Werner misapprehends the nature of the "direct threat" defense, which demands a "particularized enquiry" into the risks posed or faced by the employee. Chevron, 536 U.S. at 86. "An individualized assessment is required to establish that defense as a matter of law." Baker v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 580 F. Supp. 3d 647, 660 (D. Neb. 2022). Werner's assessment of Deuschle and Robinson wasn't bespoke—it was off-the-rack. Accordingly, the Court agrees with the EEOC that Werner's "direct threat" defense isn't applicable here.

Section 1630.2(r) defines a direct threat as a significant risk of substantial harm that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation and requires an individualized, medically grounded assessment; an in-person examination is not mandatory, although it may bear on whether the assessment was sufficiently individualized.

Baldwin v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. · filed 2023-11-09(r)

“Direct threat” means “a significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r). A determination that an individual poses a direct threat requires an “individualized assessment of the individual’s present ability to safely perform the essential functions of the job” and this assessment must also “be based on a reasonable medical judgment that relies on the most current medical knowledge and/or on the best available objective evidence.” Id. ... While Union Pacific is correct that an in-person exam is not mandatory, whether or not Union Pacific physicians personally examined Baldwin may be relevant to whether the fitness-for-duty process was sufficiently “individualized,” see 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r), and thus, the Court will not prohibit Baldwin from referencing the lack of an in-person evaluation. Baldwin, however, also misstates the law. Union Pacific is not required to conduct an in-person examination and thus there is no basis to prohibit it from stating so.

Section 1630.2(r) defines a direct threat as a significant health or safety risk that cannot be eliminated by reasonable accommodation and requires an individualized assessment rather than a blanket disqualification policy.

Bemesderfer v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · filed 2023-12-14(r)

The Court rejects the notion that an employer may circumvent the ADA by implementing a blanket policy that disqualifies holders of an FMCSA hearing exemption.

Section 1630.2(r) requires assessing a direct threat through the duration of the risk, nature and severity of potential harm, likelihood of harm, and imminence of harm, based on the individual's ability to safely perform essential job functions.

Zimmerman v. SkyWest Airlines, Inc. · filed 2024-01-26(r)

The four factors in 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r) also support SkyWest’s direct threat determination. As to the first factor, the duration of the risk is continuous and indefinite. Zimmerman is “profoundly deaf,” (Doc. 62-1 at 241) and there is nothing in the record suggesting that he can consistently and effectively communicate with individuals who are not in his line of sight. As to the second factor, the nature and severity of the potential harm is significant, as it is undisputed that ramp agents work in a fast-paced environment with heavy machinery. Doc. 62-4 at 182-84. Third, as to the likelihood of potential harm, the record notes one near-miss incident where another employee was almost run over because of the inability to communicate with Zimmerman, which demonstrates the likelihood of future incidents. And finally, it is undisputed that the ramp agent works on the tarmac every shift, so the potential harm is imminent.

Section 1630.2(r) identifies four factors for determining whether an individual poses a direct threat: the duration of the risk, the nature and severity of the potential harm, the likelihood that it will occur, and its imminence.

Harris v. JTEKT Automotive Tennessee - Morristown, Inc. · filed 2024-02-13(r)

Four factors are considered in determining whether an individual poses a direct threat: “(1) the duration of the risk; (2) the nature and severity of the potential harm; (3) the likelihood that the potential harm will occur; and (4) the imminence of the potential harm.” Id. (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r)).

Section 1630.2(r) requires evaluating direct threat by considering the duration of the risk, the severity of potential harm, the likelihood of harm, and its imminence; the court found those factors established a direct threat.

Smith v. Newport Utilities · filed 2024-04-17(r)

There are four relevant factors to the direct-threat defense: “(1) the duration of the risk; (2) the nature and severity of the potential harm; (3) the likelihood that the potential harm will occur; and (4) the imminence of the potential harm.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r). ... After considering 1) the duration of the risk, 2) the nature and severity of the potential harm, 3) the likelihood that the potential harm will occur, and 4) the imminence of the potential harm, the Court determines that Plaintiff was a direct threat to himself and other employees.

Section 1630.2(r) requires a direct-threat assessment to consider the duration, severity, likelihood, and imminence of potential harm; applying those factors, the risk from a possible recurrent seizure justified work restrictions.

Carrillo v. RR · filed 2024-08-19(r)

Finally, the railroad’s restrictions properly accounted for the duration of the risk, the nature and severity of potential harm, the likelihood of potential harm, and the imminence of potential harm. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r). First, the record contains undisputed evidence that a second seizure is a high risk for several years after the first—a risk that only time can mitigate. Carrillo’s own expert recognized this. Second, the nature and severity of potential harm was great. Carrillo’s job required him to move or direct trains in an active railyard. He had to climb on those trains and balance on precarious catwalks as high as eighteen feet in the air. He—and everyone else in the railyard—would be significantly endangered if he suddenly lost consciousness. And the likelihood and imminence of potential harm was great. Again, Carrillo’s own expert did not dispute that. Thus, there was a strong chance of harm to Carrillo, others, and Union Pacific property for several years. Union Pacific’s decision to impose restrictions for five years was reasonable.

Section 1630.2(r) defines a direct threat as a significant risk of substantial harm that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation and requires an individualized, evidence-based assessment considering four specified factors.

Remillard v. Southern New Hampshire Health System, Inc. · filed 2024-09-30(r)

The determination that an individual poses a “direct threat” shall be based on an individualized assessment of the individual’s present ability to safely perform the essential functions of the job. This assessment shall be based on a reasonable medical judgment that relies on the most current medical knowledge and/or on the best available objective evidence. In determining whether an individual would pose a direct threat, the factors to be considered include: (1) The duration of the risk; (2) The nature and severity of the potential harm; (3) The likelihood that the potential harm will occur; and (4) The imminence of the potential harm. Id. ... Here, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendants, there is a dispute of material fact as to whether the defendants can take shelter behind the direct threat defense. Although Remillard disagrees with the defendants’ assessment of her risk of harm and the likelihood that she would suffer another allergic reaction, those are quintessential factual disputes, and the court cannot resolve them in Remillard’s favor on her motion for summary judgment.

Section 1630.2(r) treats a significant risk of harm to the disabled individual as a direct threat and requires an individualized assessment based on the duration, severity, likelihood, and imminence of the risk, using reasonable medical judgment and the best available objective evidence.

Smith v. Newport Utilities · filed 2025-02-27(r)

A regulation expands this definition to include a significant risk of harm to disabled individuals themselves. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r); Echazabal, 536 U.S. at 78–87. The regulation tells employers to consider four factors when deciding whether a significant risk exists: the “duration of the risk”; the “nature and severity of the potential harm”; the “likelihood that” this harm will arise; and the “imminence” of the harm. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r)(1)–(4). Employers also should engage in an “individualized” direct-threat “assessment” and base their conclusion on “reasonable medical judgment,” “the best available objective evidence,” or both. Id. § 1630.2(r); see Michael, 808 F.3d at 307.

Section 1630.2(r) requires an individualized direct-threat assessment based on the individual’s present ability to safely perform essential job functions, using reasonable medical judgment and four specified risk factors.

DeFries v. Union Pacific Railroad Company · filed 2025-04-07(r)

Determining whether “an individual poses a ‘direct threat’ shall be based on an individualized assessment of the individual’s present ability to safely perform the essential functions of the job. This assessment shall be based on a reasonable medical judgment that relies on the most current medical knowledge and/or on the best available objective evidence.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r). This determination includes consideration of: “(1) The duration of the risk; (2) The nature and severity of the potential harm; (3) The likelihood that the potential harm will occur; and (4) The imminence of the potential harm.” Id.

Section 1630.2(r) treats a direct threat as a significant safety risk that cannot be eliminated by reasonable accommodation, assessed by considering the risk's nature, duration, severity, and probability.

Lindley v. North Mississippi Medical Center, Inc. · filed 2025-04-09(r)

“[I]n determining whether an individual poses a direct threat, courts must evaluate the significance of the risk that an employee would pose by considering four interrelated factors: the nature of the risk, the duration of the risk, the severity of the risk, and the probability that the potential harm will occur.”

Section 1630.2(r) requires a direct-threat determination to be based on an individualized assessment, current medical knowledge or the best available objective evidence, and the duration, severity, likelihood, and imminence of harm; a slightly increased, speculative, or remote risk is insufficient.

Mayer v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. · filed 2025-07-02(r)

The direct threat assessment must be “based on an individualized assessment of the individual's present ability to safely perform the essential functions of the job” and “a reasonable medical judgment that relies on the most current medical knowledge and/or on the best available objective evidence.” Id.; Sanders, 108 F.4th at 1062. In making this judgment, U.P. must have considered: “(1) [t]he duration of the risk; (2) [t]he nature and severity of the potential harm; (3) [t]he likelihood that the potential harm will occur; and (4) [t]he imminence of the potential harm.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r). It is not enough for U.P. to show “slightly increased risk” or a “speculative or remote risk” when applying these factors. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r). Instead, U.P. must show Mayer “poses a significant risk, i.e., high probability, of substantial harm.” Id. ... A reasonable jury could conclude Mayer’s heart functioning alone was insufficient to support a “reasonable medical judgment” that Mayer posed “a significant risk, i.e., high probability, of substantial harm” to his coworkers and the public. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r).

Section 1630.2(r) requires an individualized direct-threat assessment considering the risk’s duration, the nature and severity of the potential harm, its likelihood, and its imminence.

EEOC v. Drivers Management, LLC · filed 2025-07-10(r)

“Specific factors to be considered include (1) the duration of risk, (2) the nature and severity of the potential harm, (3) the likelihood that the potential harm will occur, and (4) the imminence of the potential harm.” Id.; 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r). ... Even viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Werner, it is undisputed that Werner did not conduct the individualized analysis necessary to prove this affirmative defense: Hamm just made a few general calls to back up her “prejudice, stereotypes, [and] unfounded fear” of allowing a deaf individual to drive a Werner truck. See id. (citation omitted). ... This one-size-fits-all approach is insufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact as to Werner’s direct threat defense, and we discern no error by the district court as to this issue.”

Section 1630.2(r) requires an individualized assessment before an employer may successfully assert a direct-threat defense.

Garza v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · filed 2025-06-16(r)

Furthermore, because conducting an individualized assessment is a prerequisite to asserting a successful direct threat defense, failure to do so warrants judgment as a matter of law in Garza’s favor.

Section 1630.2(r) defines a direct threat as a significant risk of substantial harm that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation, assessed using specified risk factors and an individualized, objectively reasonable determination based on current medical knowledge or the best available objective evidence.

Seals v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. · filed 2025-07-23(r)

The term “direct threat” has been defined to mean “a significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r). In determining whether an individual poses a direct threat, factors to be considered include (1) the duration of the risk, (2) the nature and severity of the potential harm, (3) the likelihood that the potential harm will occur, and (4) the imminence of the potential harm. Id. To establish a direct-threat defense, the employer must “show that its determination that [an employee] posed a direct threat was: (1) the result of an individualized assessment, (2) objectively reasonable, and (3) based on the ‘most current medical knowledge and/or on the best available objective evidence.’” Sanders, 108 F.4th at 1060 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r)).

Section 1630.2(r) requires a direct-threat determination to assess whether a significant risk of substantial harm can be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation and to rely on reasonable medical judgment grounded in the most current medical knowledge or best available objective evidence.

Baldwin v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. · filed 2025-08-01(r)

Here, the direct threat instruction did not fully reflect the law as prescribed by the governing regulation and our precedent. ... The district court’s instruction, therefore, did not meaningfully restore the full scope of the employer’s burden under our standards. ... While the direct threat instruction was erroneous, we conclude the omission did not affect the outcome of the trial.

Section 1630.2(r) requires an individualized, objectively supported assessment of whether an employee poses a direct threat, considering the risk's duration, the potential harm's nature and severity, the likelihood of harm, and its imminence.

Vasquez v. Union Pacific Railroad · filed 2025-10-30(r)

“The employer must make an ‘individualized assessment of the individual’s present ability to safely perform the essential function of the job.’ ... In making this individualized assessment, employers should consider “(1) the duration of the risk, (2) the nature and severity of potential harm, (3) the likelihood that potential harm will occur, and (4) the imminence of potential harm.” Carrillo, 2024 WL 3861374, at *3; see also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r). ... The record demonstrates that UPRC appropriately considered the duration of the risk, the nature and severity of potential harm, the likelihood of potential harm, and the imminence of potential harm, and reasonably concluded Vasquez posed a significant risk of substantial harm.”

A direct threat is a significant risk of substantial harm that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation, determined using current medical knowledge or the best available objective evidence and an individualized assessment.

Herechberger · filed 2026-03-17(r)

A direct threat under the ADA is “a significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.” Echazabal v. Chevron USA, Inc., 336 F.3d 1023, 1028 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing 29 CFR § 1630.2(r)). A direct threat determination “shall be based on a reasonable medical judgment that relies on the most current medical knowledge and/or on the best available objective evidence.” Id. In weighing the risks and their magnitude, “the views of public health authorities, such as the U.S. Public Health Service, CDC, and the National Institutes of Health, are of special weight and authority.” Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624, 650 (1998). Here, that also includes OHA. In reviewing those authorities, courts consider: (1) the “duration of the risk;” (2) the “nature and severity of the potential harm;” (3) the “likelihood that the potential harm will occur;” and (4) the “imminence of the potential harm.” Echazabal, 336 F.3d at 1028. “The determination that an individual poses a ‘direct threat’ shall be based on an individualized assessment of the individual’s present ability to safely perform the essential functions of the job.” Id. Plaintiff does not rebut then current scientific and medical evidence, including evidence from the CDC, NIH, OHA, and other authorities that, during the relevant timeframe, (1) the duration of risk was unknown; (2) the nature and severity of potential harm was grave given the large number of deaths that the COVID-19 Delta variant were causing; (3) the likelihood that the harm would occur was high given the increased risk of transmission from an unvaccinated caregiver especially to a medically vulnerable patient; and (4) the potential harm was imminent, as evinced by the “cooling bays” that PeaceHealth had to create to hold dead bodies. PeaceHealth determined, based on the “most current medical knowledge” and “best available objective evidence,” that unvaccinated employees, regardless of accommodation, posed a significant risk of substantial harm to the health and safety of patients and others in the workplace. Plaintiff offers no contrary evidence that, despite her vaccination status, she could have safely performed the essential functions of her job. Accordingly, PeaceHealth is also entitled to summary judgment on its direct threat defense to Plaintiff’s ADA and Oregon disability discrimination claim.

Section 1630.2(r) defines a direct threat as a significant risk of substantial harm to an individual or others that reasonable accommodation cannot eliminate or reduce.

Boltz · filed 2026-03-17(r)

A direct threat under the ADA is “a significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.” Echazabal v. Chevron USA, Inc., 336 F.3d 1023, 1028 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing 29 CFR § 1630.2(r)). ... PeaceHealth determined, based on the “most current medical knowledge” and “best available objective evidence,” that unvaccinated employees, regardless of accommodation, posed a significant risk of substantial harm to the health and safety of patients and others in the workplace. ... Accordingly, PeaceHealth is also entitled to summary judgment on its direct threat defense to Plaintiff’s ADA and Oregon disability discrimination claim.

Section 1630.2(r) defines a direct threat as a significant risk of substantial harm that reasonable accommodation cannot eliminate or reduce, and requires an assessment based on current medical knowledge, objective evidence, and the individual's ability to perform essential job functions.

Combs · filed 2026-03-17(r)

A direct threat under the ADA is “a significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.” Echazabal v. Chevron USA, Inc., 336 F.3d 1023, 1028 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing 29 CFR § 1630.2(r)). A direct threat determination “shall be based on a reasonable medical judgment that relies on the most current medical knowledge and/or on the best available objective evidence.” Id. In weighing the risks and their magnitude, “the views of public health authorities, such as the U.S. Public Health Service, CDC, and the National Institutes of Health, are of special weight and authority.” Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624, 650 (1998). Here, that also includes OHA. In reviewing those authorities, courts consider: (1) the “duration of the risk;” (2) the “nature and severity of the potential harm;” (3) the “likelihood that the potential harm will occur;” and (4) the “imminence of the potential harm.” Echazabal, 336 F.3d at 1028. “The determination that an individual poses a ‘direct threat’ shall be based on an individualized assessment of the individual’s present ability to safely perform the essential functions of the job.” Id. ... PeaceHealth determined, based on the “most current medical knowledge” and “best available objective evidence,” that unvaccinated employees, regardless of accommodation, posed a significant risk of substantial harm to the health and safety of patients and others in the workplace. Plaintiff offers no contrary evidence that, despite her vaccination status, she could have safely performed the essential functions of her job. Accordingly, PeaceHealth is also entitled to summary judgment on its direct threat defense to Plaintiff’s ADA and Oregon disability discrimination claim.

Section 1630.2(r) requires a direct threat assessment to consider the duration of the risk, the nature and severity of potential harm, the likelihood of harm, and its imminence.

Bender v. Norfolk Southern Corp. · filed 2014-07-08(r)

In determining the applicability of this defense, the jury was instructed to consider the characteristics of the harm allegedly posed by Plaintiff, including: (1) the duration of the risk; (2) the nature and severity of the potential harm; (3) the likelihood that potential harm will occur; and (4) the imminence of potential harm. ... Thus, the evidence supported the finding that Plaintiff constituted a direct threat and, therefore, the jury’s verdict will not be disturbed.

Section 1630.2(r) requires an individualized assessment of a worker’s present ability to perform the job safely before an employer can establish a direct threat defense.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Union Pacific Railroad · filed 1998-01-23(r)

Whether a person poses such a direct threat must be determined based upon an “individualized assessment of [his] present ability to safely perform the essential functions of the job.” ... For these reasons, the Court holds as a matter of law that UPRR failed to make the required individualized assessment and is therefore unable to bear its burden of proof on its “direct threat” defense.

Section 1630.2(r) requires a significant risk of substantial harm; a speculative or remote possibility of transmission is insufficient.

Estate of Mauro ex rel. Mauro v. Borgess Medical Center · filed 1998-02-25(r)

Thus, our analysis in the instant ease must not consider the possibility of HIV transmission, but rather focus on the probability of transmission weighed with the other three factors of the Arline test.

Under § 1630.2(r), a small likelihood of harm may still constitute a direct threat when the potential harm to others is sufficiently severe.

Hutton v. Elf Atochem North America, Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation · filed 2001-11-28(r)

Even were we to agree with Hutton, however, that the likelihood of an accident is small, we conclude that the severity and scale of the potential harm to others presented by Hutton’s employment nevertheless pose a significant risk under the direct-threat analysis.

Section 1630.2(r)’s significant-risk standard is not required to prove a removal charge based on an employee’s current medical inability to perform.

Ryals v. Department of Justice · filed 2024-04-29(r)

To extent the appellant argues on review that the agency was required to prove that the appellant’s return to work posed “a significant risk of substantial harm . . . that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation,” we are not persuaded. PFR File, Tab 1 at 5-6 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r)).

Section 1630.2(r) defines a direct threat as a significant risk of substantial harm that reasonable accommodation cannot eliminate or reduce.

Branham v. John W. Snow, Secretary, United States Department of Treasury/internal Revenue Service · filed 2004-12-17(r)

“Direct threat” has been defined as “a significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r). ... In light of these considerations, we must conclude that the record has created a genuine issue of triable fact as to whether Mr. Branham’s physical condition presents a significant risk of substantial harm to himself or others.

Section 1630.2(r) defines a direct threat as a significant risk of substantial harm that reasonable accommodation cannot eliminate; a remote evacuation risk does not meet that standard.

U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. · filed 2005-06-06(r)

A direct threat is a significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual or other persons that cannot be eliminated by reasonable accommodation. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r). ... The evidence indicated that the likelihood of an emergency evacuation at the DuPont plant is slim, and the risk of substantial harm to Barrios was not imminent. ... Accordingly, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to reject DuPont’s direct threat defense.

Section 1630.2(r) defines a direct threat as a significant risk to others’ health or safety that reasonable accommodation cannot eliminate or reduce.

Haas v. Wyoming Valley Health Care System · filed 2006-12-06(r)

In short, a direct threat exists when there is a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.

When an employer uses a perceived direct threat as a qualification standard, it must individually assess the person's present ability to perform the job safely.

Wolski v. City of Erie · filed 2011-02-25(r)

Where a perceived “direct threat” is invoked as a qualification standard, however, any determination that an individual poses a direct threat must be based on an “individualized assessment of the individual’s present ability to safely perform the essential functions of the job.”

Section 1630.2(r) requires an individualized assessment based on current medical information when an employer claims an employee poses a direct threat to safety.

Wells v. Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center · filed 2012-02-15(r)

In light of § 1630.2(r), the Court finds that CCHMC is not entitled to summary judgment on the “direct threat” affirmative defense. ... In short, a reasonable juror could conclude that CCHMC did not consider all of the currently available information in concluding that Plaintiff presented a health and safety risk if she returned to work in the Critical Airway unit.

A direct threat is a significant risk of substantial harm that reasonable accommodation cannot eliminate or reduce; courts assess the risk’s duration, severity, likelihood, and imminence.

Bender v. Norfolk Southern Corp. · filed 2014-01-14(r)

A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.” ... Drawing all inferences in Plaintiffs favor, the court cannot conclude that a momentary distraction to obtain glucose supplementation or the mild symptoms Plaintiff occasionally experiences as a result of his diabetes rise to the level of a significant risk of harm.

Section 1630.2(r) requires an individualized assessment of a direct threat, including the duration, severity, likelihood, and imminence of potential harm.

Makinen v. City of New York · filed 2014-09-30(r)

An individualized assessment involves a consideration of: “(1) [t]he duration of the risk; (2) [t]he nature and severity of the potential harm; (3) [t]he likelihood that the potential harm will occur; and (4) [t]he imminence of the potential harm.” ... After a careful of review of the record, the Court concludes that there are genuine issues of material fact as to both issues, and that both summary judgment motions on these claims should be denied.

Section 1630.2(r) requires a high probability of substantial harm to establish a direct threat; a somewhat elevated risk is insufficient.

Siewertsen v. Worthington Steel Co. · filed 2015-09-25(r)

Moreover, the testimony of Siewertsen’s supervisors does not establish, as a matter of law, there is “high probability of substantial harm.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r). Rather, Willeman testified Siewertsen was only “somewhat at risk” of injuring a coworker (Doc. 80-10 at 43), whereas Lamb opined Siewertsen had only “a higher potential” for an accident than “an operator with — with proper hearing.” (Doc. 80-23 at 55).

A direct threat determination requires an individualized assessment based on the best available objective evidence; intentionally disregarding that evidence makes the determination objectively unreasonable.

Nall v. BNSF Railway Company · filed 2019-02-15(r)

As the Supreme Court and this court have made clear, an employer's direct threat determination must result from an "individualized assessment" of the particular employee based on the "best available objective evidence," not a categorical conclusion that an employee with a particular disability cannot safely perform a job.

Section 1630.2(r) defines a direct threat as a significant risk of substantial harm that reasonable accommodation cannot eliminate or reduce; assessing that risk requires identifying the job's essential functions.

Lewis v. City of Union City, Georgia · filed 2019-08-15(r)

"Direct Threat means a significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation." ... As we have held that there is a genuine dispute of material fact on what the essential functions of a UCPD detective are, we certainly cannot resolve the question of whether she can perform those as-yet-undefined essential functions safely.

Whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity must be determined through an individualized assessment.

Alexander v. Wmata · filed 2015-03-10(j)(1)(iv)

Although some courts have treated alcoholism as a disability without examining whether it substantially limits a major life activity, the more recent trend is to engage in the individualized inquiry described in Sutton. ... 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(iv) (“The determination of whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity requires an individualized assessment.”). Alexander fails to make the required showing because he does not identify any evidence that at least one of his major life activities are substantially limited by his alcohol dependency.

An impairment is substantially limiting when it limits a major life activity compared with most people in the general population, even if it does not prevent or significantly or severely restrict that activity.

Floyd v. Lee · filed 2015-03-31(j)(1)(ii)

An impairment qualifies as a disability “if it substantially limits the ability of an individual to perform a major life activity as compared to most people in the general population,” though it “need not prevent, or significantly or severely restrict” such activity.

Section 1630.2(j) requires substantial-limitation determinations to be made case by case without considering mitigating measures such as medication.

Thomas by and Through Thomas v. Davidson Academy · filed 1994-02-07(j)

The determination of whether a person is substantially limited in a major life activity must be made on a ease by case basis, without regard to mitigating measures such as medicines. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j).

Under § 1630.2(i), major life activities include caring for oneself, walking, seeing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.

Brand v. Florida Power Corp. · filed 1994-03-07(i)

The latter defines an "individual with handicaps," subject to certain exceptions not applicable to this case, as one "who (i) has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of such person's major life activities, (ii) has a record of such an impairment, or (iii) is regarded as having such an impairment." Examples of major life activities include caring for oneself, walking, seeing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i) (1993).

Section 1630.2(j) requires whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity to be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Sandison v. Michigan High School Athletic Ass'n · filed 1994-09-13(j)

The determination of whether a person is substantially limited in a major life activity must be made on a case-by-case basis. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j).

The regulation defines major life activities to include caring for oneself, manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.

Rosenblum v. Colorado Department of Health · filed 1994-12-15(1)

The term “major life activities” refers to “functions such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(1).

The regulation defines physical or mental impairment, identifies major life activities, and defines substantial limitation as inability to perform a major life activity or serious restriction compared with an average person.

Carlson v. Inacom Corp. · filed 1995-02-21(h)(1), (i), (j)(l)

The Code of Federal Regulations defines a “physical or mental impairment” as “[a]ny physiological disorder, or condition” which affects one or more of the various body systems, including the cardiovascular system. • 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1). Examples of “major life activities” include those activities which an average person can perform with little or no difficulty, such as “caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i). “Substantially limits” is defined as either the inability to perform a major life activity, or a serious restriction on the ability to perform a major life activity as compared to an average person in the general population. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(l). ... The preponderance of the evidence in this case easily establishes that the plaintiffs migraine headaches constitute a physiological disorder which affects both the Carlson’s neurological and vascular systems. ... When Carlson gets a migraine, the headache is severe and debilitating. Both the plaintiff and her husband testified that when Carlson has a migraine headache, she is substantially limited in major life activities. She is unable to care for her infant son, drive a car, or concentrate on work.

Temporary, minor injuries generally do not substantially limit a person’s major life activities under the regulation.

Fink v. Kitzman · filed 1995-03-29(j)

ADA regulations, as well as ADA interpretive guidance, make clear that temporary, minor injuries do not “substantially limit” a person’s major life activities. 29 CFR §§ 1630.2(j), 1630 App., at 407.

Section 1630.2 treats an impairment as substantially limiting a major life activity when medication is needed to perform activities the average person can perform, and a person may qualify as disabled even without a substantial limitation in working when another major life activity is substantially limited.

Washington v. HCA Health Services of Texas Inc. · filed 1995-05-19(j)

The regulations also make clear that an individual is disabled if he or she requires the aid of medication to perform major life activities that the average individual can perform. ... Washington appears to meet the definition of “disabled” in the ADA because he has a degenerative bone disease which, if left un-medicated, would confine him to bed rest. ... Although it seems anomalous to term a man who can work 50 hours a week “disabled,” this court finds that under the regulations, Washington meets the ADA’s definition.

Section 1630.2(i) identifies major life activities, while paragraphs (j)(2) and (j)(3) guide whether an impairment substantially limits them, including that inability to perform one particular job is insufficient and relevant work factors may be considered.

Muller v. Automobile Club of Southern California · filed 1995-09-15(i), (j)(2), (j)(3)(i), (j)(3)(ii)

The regulations promulgated by the EEOC to implement the ADA define “major life activities” as “functions such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i). ... The EEOC provides a list of three factors to be considered in determining whether an individual is actually “substantially limited” in a major life activity: 1) the nature and severity of the impairment; 2) the duration or expected duration of the impairment; and 3) the permanent or long-term impact, or the expected permanent or long-term impact of or resulting from the impairment. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(2). ... Plaintiffs psychological impairment would not rise to the level of a disability as defined by the ADA unless it significantly restricted Plaintiffs ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes. As noted above, “The inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i). ... Plaintiff has not pointed to any evidence showing that her psychological impairments prevented her from holding a job in the same class as the one she held at the Auto Club before her termination. That Plaintiff did not want to return to the insurance industry does not demonstrate that her impairments met the standard for “disability” under the ADA Plaintiff has offered no information about the availability in her area of claims adjuster jobs or other jobs requiring similar skills, training, and ability.

Section 1630.2(c) identifies walking and performing manual tasks as major life activities relevant to determining whether an impairment substantially limits a person.

Spath v. Berry Plastics Corp. · filed 1995-10-18(c)

Federal regulations promulgated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission define “major life activities” as “functions such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.” 29 CFR § 1630.2© (1994).

Section 1630.2(i) identifies major life activities, including working, that are considered when deciding whether an impairment substantially limits a person under the ADA.

Palmer v. Circuit Court of Cook County, Soc. Serv. · filed 1995-10-30(i)

According to the Guidelines issued by the EEOC to implement the ADA, the term “major life activities” as used in the ADA includes such activities as “caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i). Plaintiff has produced no evidence that she is substantially limited by her depression and paranoia in any of the listed activities.

Section 1630.2(i) identifies walking as a major life activity when assessing whether an impairment substantially limits an individual.

Nedder v. Rivier College · filed 1995-08-14(i)

As regards the matter sub judice, the court assumes arguendo that Ms. Nedder's morbid obesity constitutes an "impairment" under the ADA, c f . Cook, supra, 10 F.3d at 22-23,8 and acknowledges that walking falls within the category of "major ... life activities" as defined by the EEOC regulations, see 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i) ("Major life activities means functions such as . . . walking . . . .").

Section 1630.2(i) treats walking as a major life activity, but a healed knee injury causing only recurring discomfort does not make a person disabled for ADA purposes.

Little v. Lycoming County · filed 1996-01-18(i)

A healed knee injury which sometimes causes recurring discomfort does not render plaintiff “disabled” for ADA purposes. Com ... pare: 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i) (“Major life activities means functions such as ... walking....”).

Section 1630.2(i) defines major life activities to include caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.

Kotlowski v. Eastman Kodak Co. · filed 1996-04-16(i)

“Major life activities” means “functions such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.” 29 CFR § 1630.2(i). In this ease, Kotlowski does not assert that her depression substantially limits her ability to care for herself, perform manual tasks, walk, see, hear, speak or learn. Kotlowski’s primary claim is that her depression prevents her getting out of bed early enough to work the early morning hours required by Kodak.