29 C.F.R. § 1630.2

Law changed since The ADAAA (effective Jan. 1, 2009) and EEOC’s 2011 revision replaced the old significant or severe restriction test with a broad, nondemanding substantial-limitation standard. For actual disability based on working, the class or broad range of jobs inquiry remains.

Section 1630.2(i) treats working as a major life activity, while § 1630.2(j)(3)(i) requires a significant restriction on performing a class or broad range of jobs, not merely one particular job, to establish a substantial limitation.

McVarish v. New Horizons · filed 1999-05-04(i); (j)(3)(i)

“Major life activities” is defined as “functions such as . . . working.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i). With respect to working, [t]he term “substantially limits” means significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities. 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). ... He also failed to demonstrate that defendant regarded him as having a mental impairment that substantially limited his ability to work. ... Because plaintiff failed as a matter of law to establish that in 1994 he was an individual with a disability as defined under the statute, summary judgment was properly granted.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(j)(1)(i) defines “substantially limits” by comparison to an average person's ability to perform a major life activity, and § 1630.2(j)(3)(i) requires significant restriction in a class or broad range of jobs, not inability to perform one particular job.

Albright v. Columbia County Board of Education · filed 2005-06-16(j)(1)(i), (j)(3)(i)

The term “substantially limits” means “[u]nable to perform a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform” or “[s]ignificantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under which an individual can perform a particular major life activity as compared to the condition, manner, or duration under which the average person in the general population can perform that same major life activity.” 29 C.F.R. §§ 1630.2(j)(1)(i), (ii). ... With respect to the major life activity of working, “substantially limits” means “significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities,” and “[t]he 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).

Law changed since The 2011 EEOC revision removed former § 1630.2(j)(2)’s required nature, severity, duration, and long-term-impact checklist; duration may still inform the individualized assessment.

Section 1630.2(h)(1) defines physical impairment to include physiological disorders or conditions affecting the musculoskeletal system, and § 1630.2(j)(2) requires consideration of the impairment’s nature and severity, duration, and permanent or long-term impact when determining whether it substantially limits a major life activity.

Szalay v. Yellow Freight System, Inc. · filed 1996-06-20(h)(1) (j)(2)

The EEOC regulations implementing Title I of the ADA provide a definition for physical • impairment which includes “any physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more of the following body systems: musculoskeletal ...” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1). ... The regulations list three factors to be considered in determining whether an impairment so limits a major life activity: ... This does not constitute a substantial limitation on a major life activity. ... Thus, this Court finds that Szalay does not qualify as a disabled person under the ADA.

Law changed since The ADAAA (effective Jan. 1, 2009) and EEOC’s 2011 revision replaced the old significant or severe restriction test with a broad, nondemanding substantial-limitation standard.

The regulation defines physical impairment by the affected body systems and substantial limitation by inability or significant restriction compared with the average person.

McDonald v. Ford Motor Co. · filed 2002-04-19(h)(1), (j)(1)

A physical impairment is “[a]ny physiological disorder, or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more of the following body systems: neurological, musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory (including speech organs), cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genito-urinary, hemic and lymphatic, skin, and endocrine.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1). Defendant does not dispute that plaintiff has some sort of physical impairment. ... A person who is substantially limited in a major life activity is: ... (i) Unable to perform a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform; or ... (ii) Significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under which an individual can perform a particular major life activity as compared to the condition, manner, or duration under which the average person in the general population can perform that same major life activity. ... 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1). ... Consideration of these factors demonstrates that a material issue of fact exists as to whether plaintiff is substantially limited in the major life activity of walking.

Law changed since The 2011 EEOC revision removed former § 1630.2(j)(2)’s required nature, severity, duration, and long-term-impact checklist; duration may still inform the individualized assessment. The 2011 EEOC revision removed former § 1630.2(j)(3)’s required geographic-area and local job-market factors; the class or broad range of jobs inquiry for working remains.

A back condition affecting the spinal column, lower back, and legs qualifies as a physical impairment, but disability also requires substantial limitation assessed by impairment, duration, long-term impact, and, for working, geographic and job-market factors.

Paris v. Arc/Davidson County, Inc. · filed 2004-02-25(h)(1), (j)(2)(i), (j)(3)(ii)(A)

According to regulations issued by the EEOC, the term “physical or mental impairment” means “[a]ny physiological disorder, or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more of the following body systems: neurological, musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory (including speech organs), cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genito-urinary, hemic and lymphatic, skin, and endocrine[.]” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1). ... In the instant case, Plaintiffs back condition affects her spinal column, lower back, and legs, which are components of Plaintiffs neurological and musculoskeletal systems. Therefore, the court finds that Plaintiffs back condition is a physiological disorder or condition that qualifies as a physical impairment under the ADA. ... In most cases involving a determination of whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity, the EEOC regulations instruct that courts should consider several factors: “ ‘[t]he nature and severity of the impairment; [t]he duration or expected duration of the impairment; and [t]he permanent or long-term impact, or the expected permanent or long-term impact of or resulting from the impairment.’ ” ... The EEOC regulations identify several additional factors that courts should consider when evaluating whether an individual is substantially limited in the major life activity of working, “including the geographical area to which the individual has reasonable access, and ‘the number and types of jobs utilizing similar training, knowledge, skills or abilities, within the geographical area, from which the individual is also disqualified.’ ”

Law changed since The 2011 EEOC revision removed former § 1630.2(j)(2)’s required nature, severity, duration, and long-term-impact checklist; duration may still inform the individualized assessment.

Section 1630.2 treats a physiological disorder affecting a major body system as a physical impairment and evaluates substantial limitation of a major life activity by considering the impairment’s nature, severity, duration, and long-term impact.

Cotz v. Mastroeni · filed 2007-02-23(h)(1), (i), (j)(1)

Physical impairment is defined as a “ ‘physiological disorder, or condition’ that affects one of the major ‘body systems,’ which include” the musculoskeletal system. ... “Factors to consider in determining whether a major life activity is substantially limited include: the nature and severity of the impairment; its duration or expected duration; and the existence of any actual or expected permanent or long term impact.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(h)(1) treats a physiological disorder or condition affecting the digestive system as a physical impairment, while § 1630.2(j)(2) directs courts to consider the impairment’s nature and severity, duration, and long-term impact when assessing substantial limitation.

Green v. American University · filed 2009-08-21(h)(1), (j)(2)

The first step of the Court’s analysis in assessing whether the plaintiff has a qualifying disability is to determine whether the plaintiff has a physical impairment. EEOC regulations define a physical impairment as: “(1) Any physiological disorder, or condition… affecting one or more of the following body systems: neurological, musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory (including speech organs), cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genito-urinary, hemic and lymphatic, skin, and endocrine.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1) (2008) (emphasis added). ... The factors to be considered in making this determination are: “(1) [t]he nature and severity of the impairment; (2) [t]he duration or expected duration of the impairment; and (3) [t]he permanent or long term impact, or the expected permanent or long term impact of or resulting from the impairment.” Desmond v. Mukasey, 530 F.3d 944, 956 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(2)).

Law changed since The ADAAA (effective Jan. 1, 2009) and EEOC’s 2011 revision replaced the old significant or severe restriction test with a broad, nondemanding substantial-limitation standard. For actual disability based on working, the class or broad range of jobs inquiry remains.

The regulation treats an impairment as substantially limiting work only when it prevents work across a class or broad range of jobs, and directs that mitigating measures not be considered when determining whether an individual is disabled.

Holihan v. Lucky Stores, Inc. · filed 1996-06-26(j)(3) and (h)

For an impairment to substantially limit one’s ability to work, it must not merely prevent one from working at a particular job; it must prevent one from working at a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3). ... Under EEOC regulations, we are not to consider mitigating measures in determining whether an individual is disabled. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(App.).

Law changed since The ADAAA (effective Jan. 1, 2009) and EEOC’s 2011 revision replaced the old significant or severe restriction test with a broad, nondemanding substantial-limitation standard.

Section 1630.2(j) treats substantial limitation as an individualized, case-by-case inquiry into whether an impairment significantly restricts major life activities, including caring for oneself and performing mental functions.

Fernbach v. Dominick's Finer Foods · filed 1996-07-26(j)(i), (j)(2)(i)

Whether a person’s impairment meets the definition of “disability” is an individualized determination made case-by-case. ... the uncontested evidence proffered by the plaintiff sufficiently raises a question as to whether his ability to care for himself and to perform mental functions is substantially limited. Accordingly, a genuine issue exists as to whether the plaintiff suffers from a disability under the ADA.

Law changed since The ADAAA (effective Jan. 1, 2009) and EEOC’s 2011 revision replaced the old significant or severe restriction test with a broad, nondemanding substantial-limitation standard. For actual disability based on working, the class or broad range of jobs inquiry remains.

Section 1630.2(j) treats an impairment as substantially limiting only when it prevents or significantly restricts a major life activity, and limitation of working requires restriction from a class or broad range of jobs.

Weigert v. Georgetown University · filed 2000-09-07(j)

Many impairments do not affect an individual’s life to the degree that they constitute disabling impairments. ... For an impairment to constitute a disability, the ADA requires that the plaintiff show the impairment substantially limited one or more of her major life activities. ... To establish a substantial limitation on the ability to work, the individual must be significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person with comparable training, skills and abilities. ... The plaintiff has not demonstrated that as a research assistant, she would be unable to obtain jobs in other locations or in the area of her expertise. ... The broad assertion that fluorescent lights are everywhere does not indicate that Ms. Weigert was significantly restricted from performing a broad class or range of jobs. Accordingly, the court rules that Ms. Weigert was not substantially limited in the major life activity of working.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under the regulation's working-specific regarded-as standard, the inquiry concerns whether the employer perceived the employee as significantly restricted from a class or broad range of jobs, based on reactions and perceptions rather than the employee's actual abilities.

Lizotte v. Dacotah Bank · filed 2010-01-07(j)(3)(i)

To be regarded as substantially limited in the major life activity of working so as to be disabled under the ADA, one must be regarded as “significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills, and abilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i). The analysis under this definition focuses not on the plaintiff and his actual abilities but instead on the reactions and perceptions of those he works and interacts with.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The regulation treats an individual as disabled when the employer regards the individual as significantly restricted in the ability to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes.

Cline v. Wal-Mart Stores, Incorporated · filed 1998-05-05(l)(1), (j)(3)(I), (j)(3)(ii)(B), (j)(3)(ii)(C)

In summary, Wal-Mart will be found to have regarded Cline as having an impairment that substantially limited the major life activity of working if Wal-Mart demoted Cline because it perceived him to be significantly restricted in his ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes.

Law changed since The ADAAA and 2011 EEOC revision removed the requirement that an employer perceive a substantial limitation of a major life activity; an ADA-prohibited action because of an actual or perceived impairment generally suffices, subject to the transitory-and-minor exception.

Subsection (l) identifies three ways a person may be regarded as having an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity.

Murphy v. UPS · filed 1998-03-11(l)

The regulations promulgated pursuant to the ADA state three ways that an individual might be “regarded as” having such an impairment: (1) Has a physical or mental impairment that does not substantially limit major life activities but is treated by a covered entity as constituting such limitation; (2) Has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits major life activities only as a result of the attitudes of others toward such impairment; or (3) Has none of the [previously defined] impairments . . . but is treated by a covered entity as having a substantially limiting impairment.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(l) (1997). ... Rather, UPS terminated Mr. Murphy because his blood pressure exceeded the DOT’s requirements for drivers of commercial vehicles. Thus, we conclude that UPS, in its termination decision, did not regard Mr. Murphy as having an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The regulation requires a person claiming a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working under the regarded-as prong to show disqualification from a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs; inability to perform one particular job is insufficient.

Martin v. State of Kan. · filed 1998-02-03(j)(3)(ii)(B)-(C)

In order to establish a “disability” under the “regarded as” prong of the ADA with respect to the major life activity of working, Mr. Martin must establish that the State regarded him as substantially limited in his ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs. ... A “class of jobs” is defined as “[t]he job from which the individual has been disqualified because of an impairment, and the number and types of jobs utilizing similar training, knowledge, skills or abilities, within that geographical area, from which the individual is also disqualified because of the impairment.” ... A “broad range of jobs in various classes” is defined as “[t]he job from which the individual has been disqualified because of an impairment, and the number and types of other jobs not utilizing similar training, knowledge, skills or abilities, within that geographical area, from which the individual is also disqualified because of the impairment.” ... Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Mr. Martin, he can establish only that the State regarded him as unable to perform the functions of the corrections officer position — a single, particular job. This evidence fails to establish that Mr. Martin was disabled under the “regarded as” definition found at 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(C).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2 treats a person as regarded as disabled when others treat an impairment as substantially limiting a major life activity; for working, substantial limitation requires inability to perform a class or broad range of jobs, not merely one particular job.

MacDonald v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. · filed 1996-08-26(l)(1)-(3), (i), (j)(2), (j)(2)(i)-(iii), (j)(3)(i), (j)(3)(ii)

Thus, “[a] person is ‘regarded as having’ an impairment that substantially limits the person’s major life activities when other people treat that person as having a substantially limiting impairment. The focus is on the impairment’s effect upon the attitudes of others.” ... If neither of these definitions is met, and an individual instead shows only that he is unable “to perform a single, particular job,” see 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i), the regulations and case law make clear that he has not shown that he is “substantial[ly] limit[ed] in the major life activity of working.” ... This evidence fails to establish that Mr. MacDonald was disabled under the ADA’s definition found in 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(C) because it does not show that Delta regarded his vision problems as substantially limiting his ability to be an airplane mechanic. It in no way indicates that Delta treated him as having a substantially limiting impairment. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(l)(1)-(3); Wooten, 58 F.3d at 385. ... Therefore, when Delta disallowed him from taxiing aircraft due to his impaired vision, it did not demonstrate that Delta regarded him as being substantially limited in his ability to perform the major life activity of working.

Law changed since The ADAAA (effective Jan. 1, 2009) and EEOC’s 2011 revision replaced the old significant or severe restriction test with a broad, nondemanding substantial-limitation standard. The 2011 EEOC revision removed former § 1630.2(j)(2)’s required nature, severity, duration, and long-term-impact checklist; duration may still inform the individualized assessment.

The regulation defines substantial limitation by inability or significant restriction and directs consideration of an impairment’s severity, duration, and long-term impact; it also covers an impairment treated by an employer as substantially limiting.

Olson v. Gen Elec Astrospace · filed 1996-12-05(j)(1), (j)(2), (l)(1)

These activities are "substantially limit[ed]" when one is (i) Unable to perform a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform; or (ii) Significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under which an individual can perform a particular major life activity as compared to the condition, manner, or duration under which the average person in the general population can perform that same major life activity. ... In determining if a person is affected by a disability that "substantially limits" a "major life activity" we must consider several factors including: (i) The nature and severity of the impairment; (ii) The duration or expected duration of the impairment; and (iii) The permanent or long term impact, or the expected permanent or long term impact of or resulting from the impairment. ... Thus, Olson would be disabled within the meaning of the ADA if GE regarded Olson as having a disabling impairment.

Law changed since The ADAAA and 2011 EEOC revision removed the requirement that an employer perceive a substantial limitation of a major life activity; an ADA-prohibited action because of an actual or perceived impairment generally suffices, subject to the transitory-and-minor exception.

Section 1630.2(j)(3)(i) requires a regarded-as claimant alleging a limitation in working to show that the employer perceived the impairment as restricting a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs, not merely one particular job.

Grabosky v. Tammac Corp. · filed 2000-12-22(j)(3)(i)

In other words, there must be evidence from which it may logically be inferred that Tammac perceived Grabo-sky’s heart condition as significantly restricting his ability “to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i).

Law changed since The 2011 EEOC revision removed former § 1630.2(j)(2)’s required nature, severity, duration, and long-term-impact checklist; duration may still inform the individualized assessment.

Section 1630.2(j) defines substantial limitation by comparison with the average person and requires consideration of the impairment's severity, duration, and long-term impact, while § 1630.2(l) identifies three ways a person may be regarded as disabled.

Steele v. Thiokol Corporation · filed 2001-02-22(j)(1), (j)(2), and (l)(1), (3)

A person is “substantially limited” in a major life activity if he is: ... (i) Unable to perform a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform; or ... (ii) Significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under which an individual can perform a particular major life activity as compared to the condition, manner, or duration under which the average person in the general population can perform that same major life activity. ... In determining whether any of Mr. Steele’s major life activities have been affected, the ADA regulations counsel that a court should also consider the following factors: ... (i) The nature and severity of the impairment; ... (ii) The duration or expected duration of the impairment; and ... (iii) The permanent or long term impact, or the expected permanent or long term impact of or resulting from the impairment.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(j)(1)-(2) defines substantial limitation by comparison with the average person and considers the impairment’s severity, duration, and long-term impact; § 1630.2(l) covers a person whom a covered employer mistakenly believes has an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity.

Prickett v. Amoco Oil Co. · filed 2001-06-27(j)(1), (j)(2), (l)

In order for an impairment to be substantially limiting, the individual must be (1) Unable to perform a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform; or (2) Significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under which an individual can perform a particular major life activity as compared to the condition, manner or duration under which the average person in the general population can perform that same major life activity. ... Since Prickett does not contend that he is completely unable to perform the identified major life activities, the question then becomes whether he is significantly restricted as compared with the average person. In making this determination, consideration should be given to (1) “[t]he nature and severity of the impairment”; (2) “[t]he duration or expected duration of the impairment”; and (3) “[t]he permanent or long term impact, or the expected permanent or long term impact of or resulting from the impairment.” ... A person is “regarded as” disabled under the ADA if ... The mere fact that Amoco recognized Prickett’s limitations does not mean that it regarded Prickett has having such an impairment under the ADA’s meaning. In order for an employer to have discriminated by illegally regarding an individual as disabled, “it is necessary that a covered [employer] entertain misperceptions about the individual.”

Law changed since The ADAAA and 2011 EEOC revision removed the requirement that an employer perceive a substantial limitation of a major life activity; an ADA-prohibited action because of an actual or perceived impairment generally suffices, subject to the transitory-and-minor exception.

A substantial limitation in working requires inability to perform a class or broad range of jobs, not merely one particular job, and an employee is not regarded as disabled when the employer views the employee as capable of other medical work rather than broadly unable to work.

John Swanson, M.D. v. University of Cincinnati and University Hospital, Inc. · filed 2001-09-20(j)(3)(i), (j)(3)(ii), (k)

Swanson’s move to Nevada greatly extended the geographical area for analysis. His record at the University of Nevada shows that he could perform similar surgical residency jobs requiring similar training and skills as those at UC. During his UC residency, Swanson performed well in some rotations but not so in others. Basically, he demonstrates that he did not perform as expected in a single, particular job, but could perform in a class of medical jobs. ... By offering academic assistance and encouraging him to shift to another area of practice, Dr. Bower and other members of the UC staff perceived Swanson as a capable physician, just not a capable surgeon under UC’s program. Thus, as Swanson was not substantially limited in any major life activity asserted, he does not qualify as disabled under the Rehabilitation Act or Ohio law.

Law changed since The ADAAA (effective Jan. 1, 2009) and EEOC’s 2011 revision replaced the old significant or severe restriction test with a broad, nondemanding substantial-limitation standard. For actual disability based on working, the class or broad range of jobs inquiry remains.

Section 1630.2(j)(3)(i) requires a perceived limitation in working to significantly restrict the ability to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs, not merely one particular job.

Brown v. Farmland Foods, Inc. · filed 2001-12-28(j)(3)(i)

To be regarded as substantially limited in the life activity of working, a plaintiff must be regarded as “significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i); ... Inability to perform one particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation on working.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2 treats a person as substantially limited in working only when the impairment significantly restricts a class or broad range of jobs, and an employer regards the person as disabled only when it perceives the impairment as substantially limiting more generally than inability to perform one particular job.

Foreman v. Babcock & Wilcox Co · filed 1997-05-22(j)(1), (j)(3), (j), (l)

“Substantially limits" generally means (i) unable to perform a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform; or (ii) significantly restricted as to the condition, manner, or duration under which an individual can perform a particular major life activity as compared to the condition, manner, or duration under which the average persons in the general population can perform the same major life activity. ... “[t]he term substantially limits means significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities.” ... “The inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working.” ... An individual satisfies subpart (1) of this definition if he has an impairment that is not substantially limiting, but the employer perceives the impairment as being substantially limiting. ... An employer does not necessarily regard an employee as having a substantially limiting impairment simply because it believes that she is incapable of performing a particular job; the statutory reference to a substantial limitation indicates instead that an employer regards an employee as substantially limited in his or her ability to work by finding the employee's impairment to foreclose generally the type of employment involved.

Law changed since The 2011 EEOC revision removed former § 1630.2(j)(2)’s required nature, severity, duration, and long-term-impact checklist; duration may still inform the individualized assessment.

Section 1630.2(j) assesses substantial limitation by the impairment’s nature, severity, duration, and long-term impact, while § 1630.2(k) covers an employer’s treatment of an individual as disabled.

Hirsch v. National Mall & Service, Inc. · filed 1997-11-20(j), (k)

Such activities are considered “substantially limited” when the person at issue is either unable to perform the activity or is significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration for which he can perform these acts, when compared to an average person. ... In determining whether the disability substantially limits one’s major life activities, the court considers evidence of the nature and severity of the disability, its duration, and whether it will have a permanent or long-term impact. ... Athough plaintiff has not produced sufficient evidence to show that Hirsch was “substantially limited” by a “disability,” she can still survive defendants’ motion if she can show that, regardless of any actual disability, Hirsch’s employer (Photo-Vend) regarded Hirsch as disabled and took negative employment-related action against him as a result.

Law changed since The ADAAA (effective Jan. 1, 2009) and EEOC’s 2011 revision replaced the old significant or severe restriction test with a broad, nondemanding substantial-limitation standard. For actual disability based on working, the class or broad range of jobs inquiry remains.

Section 1630.2 treats an impairment as substantially limiting work only when it significantly restricts performance of a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs, and a regarded-as claim requires the employer to treat the person as having that kind of substantial limitation.

Jackson v. Analyst Int'l · filed 1998-01-30(j)(1), (j)(3)(i), and (l)

We therefore conclude that the only major life activity even remotely affected by plaintiff’s alleged disability is his ability to work. ... The regulations specify that with respect to the major life activity of working, the term “substantially limits” means “significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i). ... Plaintiff has failed to present evidence showing that his need to dress casually has significantly restricted his ability to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes. ... In determining whether a plaintiff is regarded as having an impairment which substantially limits his ability to work, we focus on the impairment’s or perceived impairment’s effect upon the attitudes of others. ... The plaintiff must show that “the employer regarded him or her as being substantially limited in performing either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes.” Id. at 904. ... Although he showed that they allowed him to go without a tie, this fact alone is insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact concerning whether Andersen and YTS regarded him as disabled. ... Therefore, plaintiff fails to show that AIC regarded him as disabled.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(j)(3)(i) requires a significant restriction on the ability to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs to substantially limit employment, while § 1630.2(l) requires more than an employer’s awareness of an impairment to establish that the employer regarded the individual as disabled.

Olson v. Dubuque Community School District · filed 1998-04-09(j)(3)(i), (l)

To establish that she has a disability under § 12102(2)(A), Ms. Olson must show, in the circumstances of this case, that her depression significantly restricted her opportunities for employment (itself a "major life activity") by limiting her ability to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable skills and training. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i); see also Aucutt, 85 F.3d at 1319. ... Ms. Olson maintains finally that she was disabled within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(C) because her employer regarded her as being disabled. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(l). It is true, as we have said, that Dubuque was generally aware of Ms. Olson's condition, including the fact that she had sought and received medical treatment. Such an awareness is necessary for Dubuque to have regarded her as disabled, but it is not sufficient.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(l) treats a person as disabled when an employer treats a non-substantially-limiting impairment, or no impairment, as substantially limiting, and § 1630.2(j)(3)(i) measures substantial limitation in working by significant restriction in a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs.

Deane v. Pocono Medical Center · filed 1998-05-11(l), (j)(3)(i)

As the preceding discussion makes clear, however, there are factual disputes over how impaired PMC regarded Deane as being compared with her actual level of impairment, and whether PMC's perception of Deane constituted a "significant[ ] restrict[ion] in [Deane's] ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities." 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i). Deane has thus adduced sufficient evidence that PMC regarded her as substantially more physically impaired than she actually was, and that PMC's misperception, if correct, would satisfy the § 1630.2(j)(3)(i) threshold. Therefore, summary judgment on this issue was inappropriate.

Law changed since The 2011 EEOC revision removed former § 1630.2(j)(2)’s required nature, severity, duration, and long-term-impact checklist; duration may still inform the individualized assessment.

Section 1630.2 defines substantial limitation by comparison with the average person and by considering impairment severity, duration, and long-term impact, and it also covers regarded-as disability and limits work-related substantial limitation to a class or broad range of jobs.

Zuppardo v. Suffolk County Vanderbilt Museum · filed 1998-10-21(j)(1), (j)(2), (l), (j)(3)(i)

[t]he following factors should be considered in determining whether an individual is substantially limited in a major life activity: ... (i) The nature and severity of the impairment; ... (ii) The duration or expected duration of the impairment; ... (in) The permanent or long term impact, or the expected permanent or long term impact of or resulting from the impairment. ... An individual is substantially limited in the ability to work only if he is “significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs.” ... Accordingly, the Court finds, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff was not “regarded as” having a disability.

Law changed since The ADAAA and 2011 EEOC revision removed the requirement that an employer perceive a substantial limitation of a major life activity; an ADA-prohibited action because of an actual or perceived impairment generally suffices, subject to the transitory-and-minor exception.

The regarded-as prong requires an employer to erroneously believe that an individual has a substantially limiting impairment; treating a non-impairment such as uncomplicated pregnancy as a disability does not bring it within § 1630.2(l)(3).

Richards v. City of Topeka · filed 1999-03-24(l)

“An individual satisfies the third part of the ‘regarded as’ definition of ‘disability’ if the employer or other covered entity erroneously believes the individual has a substantially limiting impairment that the individual actually does not have.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630 app. § 1630.2( l). Because Richards concedes her pregnancy is not a substantially limiting impairment under the ADA, her claim does not remotely fall within this definition.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under the regarded-as prong, an impairment must be perceived as substantially limiting the person’s ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes; major life activities include performing manual tasks and working.

Manzi v. DiCarlo · filed 1999-04-06(j)(3), (l)

Under the ADA, whether an employee has such a “perceived disability” is determined in two stages. First, the court must determine if she is perceived to have a physical impairment. Second, if so, the court must determine whether the impairment is perceived to substantially limit one or more of that person’s major life activities. ... Here, there is no evidence that DiCarlo or Annarummo regarded Manzi’s arthritis as substantially limiting her ability to “perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3). ... . "Major life activities” include "functions such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(1) (West 1997).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (1) treats a person as disabled when an employer treats a non-substantially-limiting impairment as substantially limiting, while subsection (j)(3)(i) requires the perceived limitation to extend beyond a single job to a class or broad range of jobs.

Soler-Roman v. Hospital San Pablo, Inc. · filed 2002-03-28(1), (j)(3)(i)

Under this subsection, a jury may find that an individual who has an impairment that is not substantially limiting is nevertheless “disabled” if she is treated by the employer as having an impairment that does substantially limit major life activities. ... To be “regarded as having a disability,” Soler-Román must be perceived and treated by San Pablo as “generally unable to work in either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared with the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i).

Law changed since The ADAAA (effective Jan. 1, 2009) and EEOC’s 2011 revision replaced the old significant or severe restriction test with a broad, nondemanding substantial-limitation standard. The 2011 EEOC revision removed former § 1630.2(j)(2)’s required nature, severity, duration, and long-term-impact checklist; duration may still inform the individualized assessment. The ADAAA and 2011 EEOC revision require the disability inquiry to disregard the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures, except ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses.

Under subsections (j)(1) and (j)(2), substantial limitation is measured by inability or significant restriction compared with the average person while considering the impairment’s severity, duration, expected long-term impact, and mitigating measures; subsection (l) treats a person as having an impairment when the person is treated as if they had one that substantially limits a major life activity.

McCoy v. USF Dugan, Inc. · filed 2002-07-03(j)(1), (j)(2), (l)

In order for a physical or mental impairment to be “substantially limiting,” the individual must be (i) Unable to perform a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform; or (ii) Significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under which an individual can perform a particular major life activity as compared to the condition, manner, or duration under which the average person in the general population can perform that same major life activity. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1). ... To aid in this assessment, the evaluator must consider the type and severity of the impairment, the length of time the impairment has lasted or is expected to last, and the expected permanent and/or long term impact of the impairment, 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(2), as well as any mitigating or corrective measures. ... An individual is regarded as having an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity if the individual is treated as if he or she had such an impairment, whether he or she does or not. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(l).

Law changed since The ADAAA (effective Jan. 1, 2009) and EEOC’s 2011 revision replaced the old significant or severe restriction test with a broad, nondemanding substantial-limitation standard. For actual disability based on working, the class or broad range of jobs inquiry remains.

Section 1630.2 treats an impairment as substantially limiting when it significantly restricts a major life activity; for working, the restriction must affect a class or broad range of jobs, and inability to perform one particular job is insufficient.

Dose v. Buena Vista University · filed 2002-11-04(j)(1), (l)(1), (j)(3)(i), (j)(3)(ii)

A major life activity is substantially limited if an individual is unable to “perform a basic function that the average person in the general population can perform” or is significantly restricted in “the condition, manner, or duration under which [she] can perform a particular .major life activity as compared to an average person in the general population.” ... Whether a major life activity is substantially limited is an individualized and fact-specific inquiry. ... To be .regarded as substantially limited in the life activity of working, a plaintiff must be regarded as “significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities.” ... Inability to perform one particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation on working. ... Factors to be considered in determining whether a plaintiff is restricted from a class of jobs include his expertise, background, and job expectations.

Law changed since The ADAAA and 2011 EEOC revision removed the requirement that an employer perceive a substantial limitation of a major life activity; an ADA-prohibited action because of an actual or perceived impairment generally suffices, subject to the transitory-and-minor exception.

For a regarded-as disability claim based on working, § 1630.2(j)(3)(i) requires proof that the employer perceived the person as unable to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs, not merely a particular job.

Bailey v. Georgia-Pacific Corp. · filed 2002-10-09(j)(3)(i)

Since Bailey contends that Georgia-Pacific perceived him to be substantially limited in the major life activity of working, he must show that he was perceived as being unable to work in either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared with the average person having comparable training, skills, and abilities. See 29 C.F.R § 1630.2(j)(3)(i).

Law changed since The ADAAA (effective Jan. 1, 2009) and EEOC’s 2011 revision replaced the old significant or severe restriction test with a broad, nondemanding substantial-limitation standard. For actual disability based on working, the class or broad range of jobs inquiry remains.

Section 1630.2(j)(3)(i) treats a person as substantially limited in working only when significantly restricted from a class or broad range of jobs, while § 1630.2(l) covers being regarded as having a substantially limiting impairment; the court applied those standards to reject Ryburn’s disability claims.

Ryburn v. Potter · filed 2005-10-07(j)(3)(i), (l)

In the instant matter, Ryburn’s shoulder injury limited her ability only to perform heavy lifting and repetitive fine manipulation movements. Ryburn’s testimony confirmed that she was not restricted from sitting, standing, walking, climbing, kneeling, bending, or stooping. Because these medical restrictions affect only a narrow range of jobs requiring fine manipulation and heavy lifting,10 the district court correctly found that Ryburn was not substantially limited from the major life activity of working. ... The summary-judgment record reasonably supports at most an inference that Ryburn was regarded as unable to perform a relatively narrow range of tasks associated with the work of certain craft employees.

Law changed since The ADAAA and 2011 EEOC revision removed the requirement that an employer perceive a substantial limitation of a major life activity; an ADA-prohibited action because of an actual or perceived impairment generally suffices, subject to the transitory-and-minor exception.

Section 1630.2(i) defines the “regarded as” disability prong through three theories based on an employer’s treatment or perception of an impairment as substantially limiting major life activities.

Herman v. Kvaerner of Philadelphia Shipyard, Inc. · filed 2006-11-08(i)

To prevail on a “regarded as” claim, a plaintiff must show: (1) the plaintiff had a physical or mental impairment that did not substantially limit his or her ability to perform specific major life activities, but was treated by defendant as having an impairment that did so limit his or her ability to perform that activity; or (2) the plaintiff had an impairment that was substantially limiting in his or her ability to perform specific major life activities only because of the attitudes of others toward the impairment; or (3) that the plaintiff did not have any impairment, but defendant treated him or her as having an impairment that substantially limited plaintiffs ability to perform specific major life activities. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i). Herman cannot prevail on any of these theories.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For the major life activity of working, inability to perform one particular job is not a substantial limitation; the employee must be regarded as unable to work in a class or broad range of jobs.

Eldredge v. Walgreens · filed 2009-12-11(j)(3)(i)

Where the major life activity under consideration is work, “the inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation.” ... Rather, an employee must demonstrate not only that the employer thought that [she] was impaired in [her] ability to do the job that [she] held, but also that the employer regarded [her] as substantially impaired in either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared with the average person having comparable training, skills, and abilities.

Law changed since The ADAAA (effective Jan. 1, 2009) and EEOC’s 2011 revision replaced the old significant or severe restriction test with a broad, nondemanding substantial-limitation standard. For actual disability based on working, the class or broad range of jobs inquiry remains.

Section 1630.2(j)(3)(i) treats an employee as substantially limited in working when the employer views the employee as significantly restricted from a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes compared with an average person with comparable training, skills, and abilities.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Rite Aid Corp. · filed 2010-11-10(j)(3)(i)

To support a claim that an employee is “regarded as” substantially limited in the major life activity of working, the employee must show that the employer viewed him as “significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i); ... The plaintiffs have produced evidence suggesting that Rite Aid placed Mr. Fultz on leave because it viewed him as being unable to work alone, move up and down stairs easily, or reliably call in to obtain his work schedule due to his epilepsy. ... Based on these facts, a reasonable juror could conclude that Rite Aid regarded Mr. Fultz as having a substantial impairment when it placed him on administrative leave in 2008.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For the major life activity of working, “substantially limits” means significantly restricting the ability to perform either a broad class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes compared with the average person having comparable training.

Hobson v. St. Luke's Hospital & Health Network · filed 2010-08-10(j)(3)(I)

Concerning the major life activity of working, the term “substantially limits” means “significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a broad class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(l) treats a person as disabled when an employer regards an impairment as substantially limiting; for working, § 1630.2(i) identifies working as a major life activity and § 1630.2(j)(3)(i) defines substantial limitation by a significant restriction in performing a class or broad range of jobs.

Nolan v. ARKEMA, INC. · filed 2011-08-15(l), (i), (j)(3)(i)

“With regard to working, the regulations state that an individual is ‘substantially limited’ if there is a significant restriction in a person’s ‘ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities.’”

Law changed since The 2011 EEOC revision removed former § 1630.2(j)(2)’s required nature, severity, duration, and long-term-impact checklist; duration may still inform the individualized assessment.

Section 1630.2(j)(2) directs courts to assess the nature, severity, duration, and long-term impact of an impairment when deciding whether it substantially limits a major life activity, while § 1630.2(l) defines when an individual is regarded as having a disability.

D'AGOSTINO v. ROTH · filed 2021-10-19(j)(2) (l)

To determine whether a disability amounts to an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity per 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2), we look to (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. Emory v. AstraZeneca Pharms. LP, 401 F.3d 174, 180 (3d Cir. 2005) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(2)). ... We find that Plaintiff has not offered enough evidence to suggest he has a disability under the ADA, even when taking the facts in the light most favorable to him. ... A plaintiff may be “regarded as” disabled if: (1) he has a physical or mental impairment that does not substantially limit major life activities but is treated by the covered entity as constituting such impairment; (2) he has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits major life activities only as a result of the attitudes of others toward such impairment; or (3) he has no such impairment but is treated by a covered entity as having a substantially limiting impairment. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(l). ... Because Plaintiff has proffered no evidence suggesting that his employer believed him to have a disability within the meaning of the ADA, he cannot meet the burden of showing he was “regarded as” disabled.

Law changed since The ADAAA and 2011 EEOC revision removed the requirement that an employer perceive a substantial limitation of a major life activity; an ADA-prohibited action because of an actual or perceived impairment generally suffices, subject to the transitory-and-minor exception.

An employer does not regard an employee as substantially limited in working merely because it believes the employee cannot perform particular jobs; the perceived limitation must cover a class or broad range of jobs.

Biggs v. United Airlines, Inc. · filed 2002-08-22(j)(3)(i)

It is not enough for the plaintiff to prove that he was substantially limited only in his ability to perform a particular job or a limited aspect of his job. ... The court finds that Biggs cannot establish that United regarded him as substantially limited in the major life activity of working.

Law changed since The ADAAA (effective Jan. 1, 2009) and EEOC’s 2011 revision replaced the old significant or severe restriction test with a broad, nondemanding substantial-limitation standard. For actual disability based on working, the class or broad range of jobs inquiry remains.

The regulation treats work as a major life activity and asks whether an impairment significantly restricts a person from a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs, considering individualized factors such as expertise, background, job expectations, and the job lost.

Webb v. Garelick Manufacturing Co. · filed 1996-08-29(i), (j)(3)(i), (j)(3)(ii)

According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) regulations, work is a major life activity. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i). A person is substantially limited in the major life activity of working if she is “significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills, and abilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i). ... Under this broad definition of substantial limitation, an ADA plaintiff need not demonstrate that her impairment restricts her ability to perform all jobs. Rather, as the EEOC’s interpretive guide to the Act illustrates, an individual is disabled when her impairment merely prevents performance of a certain class of jobs. ... A person’s expertise, background, and job expectations are relevant factors in defining the class of jobs used to determine whether an individual is disabled. ... The court should have determined what class of jobs was relevant for its disability analysis with respect to Webb, taking into consideration the job from which Webb was fired and the specialized skills that he developed in his twenty-four years with Garelick. The court also should have considered whether Webb was significantly restricted in his ability to ’ perform that class of jobs as compared to the average person with his supervision and production development skills. If the court determines that Webb has been so restricted, then Webb is disabled within the meaning of the ADA.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(j)(3)(i) treats working as substantially limited only when a person is significantly restricted from a class or broad range of jobs, not merely one particular job.

Seaman Unified School District No. 345 v. Kansas Commission on Human Rights · filed 1999-10-01(j)(3)(i)

When referring to the major fife activity of working, the EEOC defines “substantially limits” as “significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i). ... The inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major fife activity of working. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i). ... At most, Reed has shown he is regarded as unable to perform the job of custodian only when that job requires heavy lifting. Reed has put forward no evidence that he is regarded as unable to work in a broad class of jobs.

Law changed since The ADAAA (effective Jan. 1, 2009) and EEOC’s 2011 revision replaced the old significant or severe restriction test with a broad, nondemanding substantial-limitation standard. For actual disability based on working, the class or broad range of jobs inquiry remains. The 2011 EEOC revision removed former § 1630.2(j)(3)’s required geographic-area and local job-market factors; the class or broad range of jobs inquiry for working remains.

For the major life activity of working, substantial limitation is assessed by whether the impairment significantly restricts the ability to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes, using the relevant geographical area and comparable training, knowledge, skills, or abilities.

Bartlett v. New York State Board of Law Examiners · filed 2000-08-30(j)(3)(i), (j)(3)(ii)(A)-(C)

We conclude, as the Department of Justice as amicus curiae argues, that the EEOC regulations defining "substantially limits" with respect to working are not inconsistent with the Department of Justice regulations.

Law changed since The 2011 EEOC revision removed former § 1630.2(j)(2)’s required nature, severity, duration, and long-term-impact checklist; duration may still inform the individualized assessment.

The regulation requires substantial limitation in working to be measured against overall employment opportunities; inability to perform one particular job is insufficient, and the determination considers the impairment’s nature, duration, and long-term impact.

Conant v. City of Hibbing · filed 2000-11-08(j)(1)(i)-(ii), (j)(3)(i), (i), (k)

“According to the regulations that guide the interpretation of the ADA, an impairment is ‘substantially limiting’ if it renders an individual unable to perform a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform, or if it significantly restricts the condition, manner, or duration under which an individual can perform such an activity compared to the general population.” ... “The inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working.” ... “Rather, the impairment must prevent the Plaintiff from performing an entire class or broad range of jobs as compared to the average person possessing comparable training, skills, and abilities.” ... “We recognize that Conant was subjected to a lifting restriction, in conjunction with a limitation on his repetitive bending and squatting, but such a combination of constraints, without a showing that they excluded Conant from a broad spectrum of jobs, is an insufficient showing to qualify him as being “disabled” within the meaning of the ADA.”

Law changed since The ADAAA (effective Jan. 1, 2009) and EEOC’s 2011 revision replaced the old significant or severe restriction test with a broad, nondemanding substantial-limitation standard. For actual disability based on working, the class or broad range of jobs inquiry remains.

Section 1630.2(j)(3)(i) treats working as substantially limited only when an impairment significantly restricts performance of a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs, not a single particular job.

Anderson v. Inland Paperboard & Packaging, Inc. · filed 2001-04-04(j)(3)(i)

According to the regulations, a person’s ability to work is substantially limited for the purposes of the ADA if he or she is “significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i). William produced no evidence to meet this standard. He has not suggested that his inability to work more than eight hours a day prevents him from performing an entire class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes. Rather, all the record indicates is that he is unable to perform the slitterman position with the mandatory overtime. This is not enough of a limitation to constitute a disability under the ADA, because “[t]he 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).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(j)(3)(I) treats working as substantially limited only when a person is significantly restricted from performing a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes compared with a person of comparable training, skills, and ability.

Nucifora v. Bridgeport Board of Education · filed 2001-09-24(j)(3)(I)

With respect to her claim that she was impaired in the major activity of working, Plaintiff must show that she is “significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and ability.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(I). The inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the activity of working.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For the major life activity of working, an impairment substantially limits an individual when it significantly restricts the ability to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs, rather than merely a single particular job.

Union Carbide Corp. v. Mayfield · filed 2001-11-01(j)(3)(i)

When referring to the major life activity of working, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) defines “substantially limits” as: “significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities.” § 29 CFR 1630.2(j)(3)(i) (1998). The EEOC further identifies several factors that courts should consider when determining whether an individual is substantially limited in the major life activity of working, including “the number and types of jobs utilizing similar training, knowledge, skills or abilities, within [the] geographical area [reasonably accessible to the individual], from which the individual is also disqualified.” § 1630.2(j)(3)(ii)(B). Thus, to be regarded as substantially limited in the major life activity of working, one must be regarded as precluded from more than a particular job. See § 1630.2(j)(3)(i) (“The inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working”). ... The inability to perform frequent stair climbing or climbing of ladders and scaffolds does not significantly restrict Mayfield in his ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills, and abilities.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For the major life activity of working, substantial limitation requires comparative evidence of significant restriction in a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs; inability to perform one particular job is insufficient.

Gibbs v. St. Anthony Hospital · filed 1997-02-12(j)(3)(i)

Plaintiff also argues that because defendant refused to employ her as a patient care nurse, she was excluded from a class of jobs and was therefore substantially limited in the major life activity of working. Again, however, plaintiff points to none of the comparative evidence that is relevant to this determination. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3). Therefore, we cannot conclude that plaintiff is substantially limited in the major life activity of working.

Law changed since The ADAAA (effective Jan. 1, 2009) and EEOC’s 2011 revision replaced the old significant or severe restriction test with a broad, nondemanding substantial-limitation standard. For actual disability based on working, the class or broad range of jobs inquiry remains. The 2011 EEOC revision removed former § 1630.2(j)(3)’s required geographic-area and local job-market factors; the class or broad range of jobs inquiry for working remains.

Working is substantially limited only when an impairment significantly restricts the ability to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes, assessed using the regulation’s listed impairment, duration, geographic, and job-comparison factors.

McKay v. Toyota Motor Manufacturing, U.S.A., Inc. · filed 1997-05-12(i), (j)(2), (j)(3)(i), (j)(3)(ii), (j)(3)(ii)(B), (j)(3)(ii)(C)

According to the relevant regulation, "The term substantially limits means significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities. 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) (emphasis added). ... In light of the regulatory framework of the ADA, we hold that the physical restrictions caused by plaintiff's disability do not significantly restrict her ability to perform the class of jobs at issue, manufacturing jobs; at best, her evidence supports a conclusion that her impairment disqualifies her from only the narrow range of assembly line manufacturing jobs that require repetitive motion or frequent lifting of more than ten pounds. It follows that her limited impairment would not significantly restrict her ability to perform a broad range of jobs in various classes.

Law changed since The ADAAA (effective Jan. 1, 2009) and EEOC’s 2011 revision replaced the old significant or severe restriction test with a broad, nondemanding substantial-limitation standard. For actual disability based on working, the class or broad range of jobs inquiry remains.

For the major life activity of working, an impairment substantially limits a person only when it significantly restricts access to a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs, not merely one particular job.

Siemon v. AT&T Corporation · filed 1997-05-20(j)(3)(ii)(B) (j)(3)(i)

In order to demonstrate that an impairment “substantially limits” the major life activity of working, Siemon must show a “significant restriction in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities.” Id. (quoting 29 C.F.R. 1630.2 (j)(3)(i)). A “class of jobs” includes “jobs utilizing similar training, knowledge, skills or abilities, within that geographical area,” while a “broad range of jobs in various classes” includes “jobs not utilizing similar training, knowledge, skills or abilities, within that geographical area, from which the individual is also disqualified because of the impairment.” 29 C.F.R. §§ 1630.2(j)(3)(ii)(B),(C). “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).

Law changed since The ADAAA and 2011 EEOC revision removed the requirement that an employer perceive a substantial limitation of a major life activity; an ADA-prohibited action because of an actual or perceived impairment generally suffices, subject to the transitory-and-minor exception.

A person is not substantially limited in working merely because an employer regards the person as unable to perform one particular job; the perceived inability must extend to a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs.

Serrano v. County of Arlington · filed 1997-11-26(j)(3)(i)

Importantly, however, “[t]he inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working.”

Law changed since The ADAAA (effective Jan. 1, 2009) and EEOC’s 2011 revision replaced the old significant or severe restriction test with a broad, nondemanding substantial-limitation standard. For actual disability based on working, the class or broad range of jobs inquiry remains.

For the major life activity of working, § 1630.2(j)(3)(i) treats a substantial limitation as a significant restriction in a class or broad range of jobs, not an inability to perform one particular job.

Papadopoulos v. Modesto Police Department · filed 1998-07-09(j)(3)(i)

In order to establish a “substantial limitation” in the major life activity of working, E.E.O.C. regulations explain that a plaintiff must show that he is “significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i). The regulations further explain that “the inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For the major life activity of working, a substantial limitation requires significant restriction in a class or broad range of jobs, not inability to perform one particular job.

Duncan v. State of Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services · filed 1999-02-03(j)(3)(i)

But even if the Ethan Allen officials thought that Duncan was ill-suited to the job of youth counselor because he had a personality disorder, that would demonstrate only that he had trouble at one specific job — a showing of disability that we have specifically found to be inadequate under both the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA. ... See also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i) (ADA). Duncan instead had to introduce some evidence indicating that the Ethan Allen officials thought he had an impairment that would have disqualified him from a broader category of jobs. The evidence at trial pointed in exactly the opposite direction. When the problems arose in Unit 6, the Ethan Allen officials responded by transferring Duncan to Draper Hall, indicating that they believed he could work successfully in a slightly different environment. We agree with the district court that Duncan failed to present evidence that would have justified a jury’s finding that he was perceived to suffer from a “disability” within the meaning of the two laws.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(j)(3)(i) requires a claimant asserting that working is substantially limited to show a significant restriction in the ability to perform a broad range of jobs, supported by an individualized assessment of the relevant employment market.

Gonzalez v. El Dia, Inc. · filed 2002-09-05(j)(3)(i)

First, Gonzalez tendered no evidence that her impairments rendered her unable to perform a broad range of jobs, as distinguished from the particular job she held at El Nuevo Dia immediately prior to her termination. See Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 492 (1999); Gelabert-Ladenheim, 252 F.3d at 58-59 (noting that ADA requires an "individualized inquiry," and "[w]hen the major life activity of working is at issue . . . the plaintiff 'assumes a more fact-specific burden of proof'") (citation omitted); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i) (same). Nor did she adduce any evidence as to the employment demographics in the relevant geographic area, from which a factfinder rationally might assess the appropriate section 1630.2(j)(3) criteria.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(j)(3)(i) requires a claimant asserting disability based on working to show a significant restriction in a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs, not merely an inability to perform one specific job.

Mulholland v. Pharmacia & Upjohn, Inc. · filed 2002-11-22(j)(3)(i)

A plaintiff seeking to show that he is disabled may also argue that he is disabled from “working.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i). This is a much more difficult showing to make, because the plaintiff must not show merely that he was disabled from a single job, but rather that he was “significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For the major life activity of working, substantially limiting an individual means significantly restricting the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes, compared with the average person having comparable training, skills, and abilities.

McClure v. General Motors Corp · filed 2003-07-01(j)(3)(ii)

An individual must be regarded as precluded from more than a particular job in order to establish that he was treated a having an impairment that substantially limits one’s ability to work. See Murphy, 527 U.S. at 523 (“When referring to the major life activity of working, the EEOC defines ‘substantially limits’ as: ‘significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities.’”) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(ii)); see also Gowesky v. Singing River Hosp. Sys., 321 F.3d 503, 508 (5th Cir. 2003).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

(j)(3)(i) treats an impairment as substantially limiting the major life activity of working when it significantly restricts a person's ability to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes compared with similarly trained and skilled people.

Ollie v. Titan Tire Corp. · filed 2003-07-15(j)(3)(i)

The district court concluded that there was sufficient evidence that Titan Tire regarded Ollie as being “significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i). The district court found from the evidence that Titan Tire believed that Ollie could not perform any manufacturing or warehouse facility job in the Des Moines area, because of its view that all such facilities would present an environment of dust and fumes. ... After examining the record, we find that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Titan Tire perceived Ollie as disabled within the meaning of the ADA.

Law changed since The ADAAA and 2011 EEOC revision removed the requirement that an employer perceive a substantial limitation of a major life activity; an ADA-prohibited action because of an actual or perceived impairment generally suffices, subject to the transitory-and-minor exception.

Section 1630.2(j)(3)(i) treats working as substantially limited only when the perceived restriction covers a class or broad range of jobs, not a single particular job.

Howell v. New Haven Board of Education · filed 2004-03-15(j)(3)(i)

Regulations of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) define a substantial limitation on the major life activity of working as: significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities. The inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working. 29 CFR § 1630.2(j)(3)(i). ... It is clear, therefore, a belief by the defendant only that Howell was limited in his ability to teach at the Hyde School would not be cognizable under the ADA. ... A perception that Howell was unable to work in any kind of teaching position or in the educational field, however, would be sufficient to establish an ADA claim. Teachers work in both public and private schools, with children and adults of all ages and abilities, in classroom settings and as tutors. Teaching, therefore, is sufficiently broad to be deemed a class of jobs.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For the major life activity of working, a substantial limitation requires being regarded as unable to perform a broad range or class of jobs, assessed by the general type of work in the relevant geographic area; inability to perform one particular job is insufficient.

Moorer v. Baptist Memorial Health Care System · filed 2005-02-11(j)(3)(ii)(B)

Rather, Moorer still needed to proffer evidence showing that Baptist regarded him as unable to perform a broad range or class of jobs, meaning that Baptist perceived him as unable to perform the same general type of work in the same geographic area. ... We hold that, like the plaintiff in Henderson, Moorer presented evidence showing that Baptist perceived him as incapable of performing a broad class of work by virtue of Baptist's perception of Moorer's inability to perform managerial work for Baptist. ... The fact that Baptist believed that Moorer's alcoholism made him unable to perform his hospital administrator job, which required a broad range of managerial skills, permits the reasonable inference that Baptist believed that Moorer's alcoholism rendered him incapable of performing a substantial number of managerial jobs.

Law changed since The ADAAA (effective Jan. 1, 2009) and EEOC’s 2011 revision replaced the old significant or severe restriction test with a broad, nondemanding substantial-limitation standard. For actual disability based on working, the class or broad range of jobs inquiry remains.

For the major life activity of working, being regarded as substantially limited requires a significant restriction from a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes; inability to perform one particular job is insufficient.

Ridgely v. Montgomery County · filed 2005-09-15(j)(3)(i), (j)(3)(ii)(B)

An employer regards a person as substantially limited in his ability to work if the employer perceives him to be “significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills[,] and abilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2Cj)(3)(i); ... Furthermore, “[t]he 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); ... The County’s October 30, 2002 letter to the appellant, saying that he no longer was medically qualified for the position of Fire/Rescue Captain and that he would be terminated if he did not seek employment in another County job for which he was qualified, is also not, as the appellant argues, evidence that the County regarded him as substantially limited in the major life activity of working. It is merely evidence that the County regarded him as unfit for the job of Fire/Rescue Captain, which, as noted above, is not a broad range of jobs in various classes or a class of jobs as a matter of law.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(j)(3)(i) treats a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs as the relevant scope for determining whether a person is significantly restricted in working; manufacturing can constitute such a class or range.

Rigby v. Springs Industries, Inc. · filed 2005-11-16(j)(3)(i)

The sole premise of the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the regarded as theory was the premise that manufacturing is not a class or broad range of jobs, which it must be for Rigby to be “significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills, and abilities.” Mullins v. Crowell, 228 F.3d 1305, 1314 (11th Cir. 2000) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i)) (internal marks omitted). As a decision of this Court, which was issued after the district court’s ruling in this case, establishes, manufacturing is a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs for disability purposes.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(j)(3) treats a person as substantially limited in working only when significantly restricted from a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs, not merely one particular job.

Taylor v. USF-Red Star Express, Inc. · filed 2006-12-21(j)(3)

With respect to the major life activity of working . . . [t]he term substantially limits means significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities. The inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working. ... We conclude there was no error in the District Court’s instruction on the meaning of “major life activity,” which was consistent with Toyota, Sutton, our precedent, and the EEOC regulations.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For the major life activity of working, § 1630.2(j)(3)(i) requires a significant restriction on the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes.

Carter v. Ridge · filed 2007-11-19(j)(3)(i)

It is not enough for Carter to present evidence that he can no longer pilot single engine piston driven aircraft; he must show that he is “significantly restricted in ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i). Carter’s own argument, acknowledging that he is able to pilot other types of aircraft, indicates that he has not met this standard.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For the major life activity of working, a substantial limitation means a significant restriction in performing a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes; inability to perform one particular job is insufficient.

Freeman v. BNSF Railway Co. · filed 2008-06-06(j)(3)(i)

Pertinent EEOC regulations state that “[w]ith respect to the major life activity of working,” the phrase “substantially limited” means “significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities.” ... “The inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working.” ... Thus, to prevail on his “regarded as” claim, plaintiff is required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that BNSF treated plaintiffs impairment as “significantly restricting” his “ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs” as compared to similarly trained persons.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For the major life activity of working, substantial limitation means a significant restriction in the ability to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes; inability to perform one particular job is insufficient.

Stone v. Department of Aviation · filed 2008-08-05(j)(3)(i)

When “working” is the major life activity at issue in an ADA case, the term “substantially limits” in § 12102(2)(A) means that the plaintiff must ... significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities. 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) (emphasis added); see also Sutton, 527 U.S. at 491-92 (applying § 1630.2(j)(3)(i)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(j) treats a person as substantially limited when an impairment significantly restricts the condition, manner, or duration of an activity, and requires that a limitation on working prevent performance of a broad range of jobs.

Porch v. Potter · filed 2010-02-22(j)(l); (j)(3)(i)

A person is substantially limited in an activity if she cannot perform it or, in comparison to an average person in the general population, is “significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration” under which she can perform that activity. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(l); ... When working is the major life activity at issue, it is not enough for a plaintiff to show that her impairment keeps her from doing her present job; an impairment does not substantially limit the major life activity of working unless the condition prevents the plaintiff from performing “a broad range of jobs.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i); see ... .

Law changed since The 2011 EEOC revision expressly added reproductive functions to § 1630.2(i)’s major-life-activities list.

Section 1630.2 treats a reproductive-system disorder as a physical impairment and defines major life activities with an illustrative list that does not include reproduction or caring for others.

Krauel v. IA Methodist Medical · filed 1996-09-11(h)(1), (i)

Regulations issued by the EEOC define "physical or mental impairment" as including a disorder of the reproductive system. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1). ... As defined in 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i), the term major life activity means "functions such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working." ... While we recognize that this list is non-exclusive, we note that reproduction and caring for others are not among the examples of listed activities.

Law changed since The ADAAA (effective Jan. 1, 2009) and EEOC’s 2011 revision replaced the old significant or severe restriction test with a broad, nondemanding substantial-limitation standard. For actual disability based on working, the class or broad range of jobs inquiry remains.

Section 1630.2 treats an impairment as substantially limiting only when it significantly restricts major-life-activity performance and recognizes accommodations such as job restructuring or reassignment, but does not require an employer to remove essential functions or create a new position.

Hammond v. Jacobs Field Services · filed 2012-02-09(1), (o)(2)(ii), (j)(1)

Relevant to the facts of this case, reasonable accommodations include “[j]ob restructuring; part-time or modified work schedules; [or] reassignment to a vacant position.” ... The Court finds that plaintiff has failed to carry his burden of proving he was denied a reasonable accommodation. Jacobs’ obligation under the law was to provide reasonable accommodation to an employee who can perform the essential functions of the job with such accommodation. Jacobs was not obligated under the law to create a new position for plaintiff in order to do this. ... Under these circumstances, no reasonable accommodation was even required.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(j) treats an employee as substantially limited when unable or significantly restricted in performing a major life activity, requiring a limitation on a class or broad range of jobs for working, while § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) defines reasonable accommodations as adjustments enabling essential job functions and does not require extended leave when the employee cannot perform those functions.

Walton v. Mental Health Association of Southeastern Pennsylvania · filed 1999-02-23(j), (o)(1)(ii)

an individual is substantially limited in a major life activity when she is “[ujnable to perform a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform” or is “[sjignifi-cantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under which [she] can perform a particular major life activity as compared to the condition, manner, or duration under which the average person in the general population can perform that same major life activity.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j). ... “[w]ith respect to the major life activity of working[, t]he term substantially limits means significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities.” ... “The inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working.” ... Reasonable accommodations are “[m]odifiea-tions or adjustments to the work environment, or to the manner or circumstances under which the position held or desired is customarily performed, that enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of that position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(l)(ii). ... Although unpaid leave supplementing regular sick and personal days might, under other facts, represent a reasonable accommodation, an employer does not have to allow leave of this type to the extent that MHASP had already granted it to Walton. A blanket requirement that an employer allow such leave is beyond the scope of the ADA when the absent employee simply will not be performing the essential functions of her position.