29 C.F.R. § 1630.2

Section 1630.2(j)(1)(vi) requires determining whether a major life activity is substantially limited without considering the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures.

Murphy v. Kamphuis · filed 2020-03-31(j)(1)(vi)

The determination of whether someone’s major life activity is substantially limited is made “without regard to the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures.” 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(j)(1)(vi).

Section 1630.2(m) defines a qualified individual by the ability to meet job requirements and perform essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation; § 1630.2(n)(1) defines essential functions as fundamental job duties, and § 1630.2(n)(3)(i) makes the employer’s judgment relevant evidence of essentiality.

Mitchell v. Tillerson · filed 2019-03-31(m), (n)(1), (n)(3)(i)

The parties debate instead whether Mitchell was a “qualified individual[,]” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A), meaning that she “satisfies the requisite skill, experience, education and other job-related requirements . . . and, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of such position[,]” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m). ... “Essential functions” are “the fundamental job duties of the employment position” and do “not include the marginal functions of the position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1). ... First, Mitchell does not dispute that her employer, the State Department, has consistently determined that physical fitness is a critical aspect of the successful Special Agent’s training and role. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)(i).

The regulation defines a qualified individual by requiring satisfaction of job-related requirements and the ability, with or without reasonable accommodation, to perform essential functions; essential functions are fundamental duties evaluated using the regulation’s nonexclusive factors and evidence.

Celsky v. Pennsylvania Higher Education Assistance Agency · filed 2020-09-10(m), (n)(1), (n)(2)(III), (n)(3)(i), (n)(3)(ii), (n)(3)(iii), (n)(3)(vii)

The relevant regulations divide the “qualified individual” analysis into two prongs: first, “the individual satisfies the requisite skill, experience, education and other job-related requirements of the employment position such individual holds or desires,” and second, “with or without reasonable accommodation, [the individual] can perform the essential functions of such position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m). ... ADA regulations define “essential functions” as “the fundamental job duties of the employment position the individual with a disability holds or desires,” expressly excluding “marginal functions” of the job. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1). ... We will grant PHEAA’s Rule 56 motion to the extent that we find that taking phone calls is an “essential function” of the Lead position.

Section 1630.2 excludes individuals covered solely by the regarded-as prong from the reasonable-accommodation entitlement, defines a qualified individual by the ability to perform essential job functions with or without accommodation, and identifies evidence relevant to determining whether a function is essential.

Turcotte v. Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC · filed 2019-02-14(o)(4), (m), (n)(3)

First, an employer “is not required to provide a reasonable accommodation to an individual who meets the definition of disability solely under the ‘regarded as’ prong.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(4). ... To show that she was qualified, the employee must satisfy a two-part test: [T]he plaintiff must demonstrate both that she satisfies the prerequisites for the position, that is, that she has the proper training, skills, and experience, and that she could perform the essential functions of [the] job, either with or without reasonable accommodation. ... Evidence of whether a function is essential includes, inter alia, “[t]he employer’s judgment as to which functions are essential,” “[w]ritten job descriptions prepared before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job,” and “[t]he amount of time spent on the job performing the function.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3).

Section 1630.2(m) defines a qualified individual by reference to the requisite skill, experience, education, and job-related requirements, while § 1630.2(n) defines essential functions as fundamental job duties and directs consideration of the listed factors.

Krennerich v. Inhabitants of the Town of Bristol · filed 1996-10-24(m), (n)(2)(i), (n)(2)(ii), (n)(3)(i), (n)(3)(ii), and (n)(3)(iv)

An employee is “qualified” if he satisfies “the requisite skill, experience, education and other job-related requirements” of the employment position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m). The ADA requires that in order for someone to be considered a “qualified individual with a disability,” he must be able to perform the “essential functions” of the job. 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8). Regulations of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission state that “essential functions” are “fundamental job duties” and not “marginal. functions of the position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630(n). In determining whether a function is “essential,” the Court must consider whether the position in question exists to perform that function, 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(2)(i), whether the employer has only a limited number of employees available among whom he can distribute this function, 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(2)(ii), and whether the employer believes the function is “essential”, 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)(i). The Court must also consider the employee’s job description and the consequences of not requiring the employee, to perform the function. 29 C.F.R. §§ 1630.2(n)(3)(ii) and (iv).

Section 1630.2(m) defines an otherwise qualified person as someone who can perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation.

Sutton v. Lader · filed 1999-08-25(m)

Furthermore, in order to establish a prima facie case, Sutton must have demonstrated that he was "otherwise qualified" to do his job during the relevant time frame. In the employment context, an otherwise qualified person is one who can perform " 'the essential functions' of the job in question with or without reasonable accommodation." 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m); School Board of Nassau County v. Arline, 480 U.S. 273, 275, 107 S.Ct. 1123, 94 L.Ed.2d 307 (1987). The district court in this case, however, made no finding that Sutton was able to "perform the essential functions" of the job of SBA construction analyst during the relevant time frame. and we conclude that no such finding can be made on the evidence in this record.

Section 1630.2(m) uses a two-step test for a qualified individual: the person must have the job-related qualifications and be able to perform the essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation; § 1630.2(n) defines essential functions as fundamental job duties and identifies evidence relevant to that determination.

Kinnaman v. Ford Motor Co. · filed 2000-01-10(m), (n)(1), (n)(3), (n)(3)(i)

The determination of whether an individual is qualified for purposes of the ADA is a two-step process, and should be considered as of the time of the adverse employment decision. The first inquiry is to determine if the individual possesses the requisite skill, experience, education and other job-related requirements for the position held or desired. Browning, at 1047-48; 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m). The second inquiry is to determine whether the individual can, despite his or her impairments, perform the essential functions of the job either with or without reasonable accommodation. Browning, at 1047-48; 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m).

Section 1630.2(m) covers a qualified individual with a disability who can perform the essential functions of the position, and regular attendance was an essential function of this tool-and-die-maker job.

Jovanovic v. In-Sink-Erator Division of Emerson Electric Company · filed 2000-01-07(m)

However, our review of the entire record in this case supports the district court’s finding that regular attendance is an essential function of the tool and die maker position at ISE.

Section 1630.2(m) requires a qualified individual to satisfy the position's prerequisites and perform its essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Allied Systems, Inc. · filed 1999-02-19(m)

The first step in ascertaining whether an individual is qualified is “to determine if the individual satisfies the prerequisites for the position, such as possessing the appropriate educational background, employment experience, skills, licenses, etc.” 29 C.F.R. app. § 1630.2(m). “The second step is to determine whether or not the individual can perform the essential functions of the position held or desired with or without reasonable accommodation.”

Section 1630.2(n)(1) defines essential functions as the fundamental duties of a job and excludes marginal functions; the court applied that rule in treating regular attendance as an essential function and finding Castro not qualified.

Castro-Medina v. Procter & Gamble Commercial Co. · filed 2008-06-28(n)(1)

The EEOC guidelines define the term “essential functions” as “the fundamental job duties of the employment position the individual with a disability holds or desires.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(l). The term, however, does not include the marginal functions of the position.

Section 1630.2(m) defines a qualified individual by requiring the skills and ability to perform essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation, and § 1630.2(n)(2) identifies limited staffing and specialized expertise as reasons a function may be essential.

Pagonakis v. Express LLC · filed 2009-03-05(m), (n)(1)-(3)

The EEOC regulations divide this inquiry into two parts: (1) whether the individual has the requisite skill, experience, education and other job-related requirements of the position sought, and (2) whether the individual, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of that position. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m). ... A duty is an “essential function” of the job if it is “fundamental,” and not “marginal,” to the employment position. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1). ... “A job function may be considered essential for any of several reasons, including, but not limited to, the following: ... (ii) The function may be essential because of the limited number of employees available among whom the performance of that job function can be distributed; and/or (iii) The function may be highly specialized so that the incumbent in the position is hired for his or her expertise or ability to perform the particular function. ... Because there are disputed issues of material fact as to the essential functions of the Co-Manager position, we cannot agree with the District Court’s conclusion that no reasonable jury could find that Pagonakis was a qualified individual.

Section 1630.2(m) asks whether an employee has the job qualifications and can perform the essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation, while § 1630.2(n)(1) makes whether a function is essential a case-by-case factual question based on the relevant evidence.

Freeman v. Chertoff · filed 2009-03-30(m), (n)(1)

The EEOC regulations divide this inquiry into two parts: (1) whether the individual has the requisite skill, experience, education and other job-related requirements of the position sought, and (2) whether the individual, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of that position. ... “Whether a particular function is essential is a factual determination that must be made on a case by case basis based upon all relevant evidence.” ... However, the record evidence could lead a reasonable factfinder to conclude that being physically present in the office was not an essential function of the job.

Section 1630.2(m) defines a qualified individual with a disability as one who meets the position's job requirements and can perform its essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation; § 1630.2(n)(1) defines essential functions as the position's fundamental job duties.

Samson v. Federal Express Corp. · filed 2012-06-29(m), (n)(1)

A “[qualified individual with a disability means an individual with a disability who satisfies the requisite skill, experience, education and other job-related requirements of the employment position such individual holds or desires, and who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of such position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m). “Essential functions” are defined as the “fundamental job duties of the employment position the individual with a disability holds or desires.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(l). ... The undisputed evidence establishes as a matter of law that holding a commercial driver’s license and passing a DOT medical ’examination were essential functions of the Technician position. ... Because the facts are undisputed that a commercial driver’s license is required for the Technician position—regardless of whether the commercial motor vehicle is driven in interstate or intrastate commerce—that the license was at all times a job requirement, and that Mr. Samson was unable to obtain his license due to his unsuccessful medical examination, this Court finds as a matter of law that he is not a qualified individual with a disability.

Section 1630.2(m) defines a qualified individual by the ability to satisfy job-related requirements and perform essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation; § 1630.2(n)(l) defines essential functions as fundamental job duties; and § 1630.2(n)(3) identifies evidence relevant to determining whether a function is essential.

Mattingly v. University of South Florida Board of Trustees · filed 2013-03-15(m), (n)(l), (n)(3)

“Qualified” means that “the individual satisfies the requisite skill, experience, education and other job-related requirements of the employment position such individual holds or desires and, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of such position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m). ... “Essential functions” are “the fundamental job duties of the employment position the individual with a disability holds or desires.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(l). ... Evidence of whether a particular function is essential includes, but is not limited to: (i) the employer’s judgment as to which functions are essential; (ii) written job descriptions prepared before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job; (iii) the amount of time spent on the job performing the function; (iv) the consequences of not requiring the incumbent to perform the function; (v) the terms of a collective bargaining agreement; (vi) the work experience of past incumbents in the job; and/or (vii) the current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3).

Section 1630.2(m) treats a person who can perform the essential functions of the job, with or without reasonable accommodation, as a qualified individual, while § 1630.2(n)(1) defines essential functions as fundamental job duties rather than marginal ones.

Larson v. United Natural Foods West Inc. · filed 2013-05-17(m), (n)(1)

To determine if someone is a qualified individual, courts consider whether the individual can perform the essential functions of their position with or without a reasonable accommodation. 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m); see Bates, 511 F.3d at 989. “Essential functions” are “fundamental job duties of the employment position . . . not includ[ing] the marginal functions of the position.” Bates, 511 F.3d at 989 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1)); see Cripe v. City of San Jose, 261 F.3d 877, 887 (9th Cir. 2001). If a disabled person cannot perform a job’s essential functions, even with a reasonable accommodation, then the ADA’s employment protections do not apply.

Section 1630.2(m) defines a qualified individual as one who meets the position’s requirements and can perform its essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation; § 1630.2(n)(3) lists seven non-exclusive factors for determining whether a function is essential.

Anderson v. Procopy Technologies, Inc. · filed 2014-05-29(m), (n)(3)

Under the ADA regulations, the term “qualified” means “that the individual satisfies the requisite skill, experience, education and other job-related requirements of the employment position such individual holds or desires and, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of such position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m). ... The ADA and regulations provide guidelines for determining if a given function is “essential.” See 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8) (“consideration shall be given to the employer’s judgment as to what functions of a job are essential, and if an employer has prepared a written description before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job, this description shall be considered evidence of the essential functions of the job”); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3) (listing seven non-exclusive factors to consider: (1) an employer’s judgment that the function is essential; (2) written job descriptions; (3) the amount of job time devoted to performing the function; (4) the consequences of not requiring the employee to perform the function; (5) terms in a relevant labor agreement; (6) the work experience of those who have held the position in the past; and (7) the current work experience of those who hold similar jobs).

Section 1630.2(m) defines a qualified individual as an employee who can perform the essential functions of the position with or without accommodation.

Velez-Ramirez v. Rico · filed 2015-03-31(m)

The ADA’s discrimination provision extends to “qualified individuals” with a disability. 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8). To be considered qualified, the employee must be capable of performing the essential functions of the position with or without accommodation. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m).

Section 1630.2(m) defines a qualified individual as someone who can perform the essential functions of the employment position with or without reasonable accommodation.

Randel Lane v. Clark County · filed 2015-06-22(m)

Here, Lane was not a “qualified individual,” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a), because he could not “perform the essential functions of [his] employment position” “with or without reasonable accommodation.” Id. § 12111(8); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m).

Section 1630.2(m) requires a qualified individual with a disability to satisfy the position’s requisite skill, experience, education, and other job-related requirements and to be able to perform its essential functions with or without accommodation.

Watt v. Brown County · filed 2016-09-26(m)

First, the disabled individual “satisfies the requisite skill, experience, education and other job-related requirements of the employment position [he] holds or desires.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m).

Section 1630.2(m) requires a qualified individual to have the requisite job-related qualifications and be able to perform the essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation, while § 1630.2(c)(3) treats the employer’s judgment as evidence of which functions are essential.

Lincoln v. BNSF Railway Company · filed 2018-08-17(m); (c)(3)

To demonstrate that he was a qualified individual, a plaintiff must first establish that he had “the requisite skill, experience, education and other job-related requirements of the employment position.” Tate v. Farmland Indus., Inc., 268 F.3d 989, 993 (10th Cir. 2001) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m)). Second, he must establish that he can perform the “essential functions” of the position. See id. ... Based on this statutory instruction, courts “evaluating whether a job requirement is essential . . . place considerable weight on an employer’s judgment concerning a particular job’s essential functions.” Kilcrease, 828 F.3d at 1221–22 (internal quotation marks omitted); see 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(c)(3) (identifying “[t]he employer’s judgment as to which functions are essential” as evidence of “whether a particular function is essential”).

Section 1630.2(m) defines a qualified individual by the ability to perform essential job functions with or without reasonable accommodation, while § 1630.2(n)(1) and (n)(3) define essential functions and provide illustrative factors for identifying them.

Lequita Nix Hilliard v. Dolgencorp, LLC · filed 2019-03-26(m), (n)(1), (n)(3)

“The term essential functions means the fundamental job duties of the employment position the individual with a disability holds or desires,” but it does not include only marginal functions. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1). In determining whether a particular function is essential, the regulations instruct courts to consider the following list of factors, which is illustrative rather than exhaustive: (i) The employer’s judgment as to which functions are essential; (ii) Written job descriptions prepared before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job; (iii) The amount of time spent on the job performing the function; (iv) The consequences of not requiring the incumbent to perform the function; (v) The terms of a collective bargaining agreement; (vi) The work experience of past incumbents in the job; and/or (vii) The current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3). The inquiry into whether a function is essential is highly fact specific.

Section 1630.2(m) requires a qualified individual to be able to perform the essential functions of the position, with or without reasonable accommodation.

May v. Delta Air Lines · filed 2022-07-20(m)

“To qualify for a position, the employee must be able to ‘perform the essential functions of such position.’” McNeil v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 936 F.3d 786, 789 (2019) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m)). ... The evidence shows that working full-time was an essential function of the Seasonal Ready Reserve Ramp Agent position in 2018. ... Because working full-time was an essential function of the Seasonal Ready Ramp Reserve Agent position, May’s medical restriction of working three 8-hour days per week disqualified him from performing this position.

Section 1630.2(m) requires the qualified-individual inquiry to begin with job prerequisites, while § 1630.2(n)(1) defines essential functions as fundamental duties rather than marginal ones.

Jackson v. Christus Health Northern Louisiana · filed 2022-07-22(m), (n)(1)

A “qualified individual” for purposes of Title I of the ADA is one who “with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position” held. 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8). Title I of the ADA protects only qualified individuals against employment discrimination “on the basis of disability.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112. Determining if an individual is qualified is a two-step process. The first step is to determine if the individual satisfies the prerequisites for the position, in terms of “skill, experience, education and other job-related requirements.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m). The second step is to determine if the individual can perform the “essential functions” of the position, with or without accommodations. See id. ... Essential functions of a position are the “fundamental job duties” and do not include “marginal functions of the position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1).

Section 1630.2(m) defines a qualified individual by requiring the requisite job-related qualifications and the ability to perform the position’s essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation, while § 1630.2(n)(1) defines essential functions as fundamental job duties rather than marginal ones.

Sanders-Lee v. County of Clark · filed 2023-05-04(m) (n)(1)

Determining if a person is a “qualified individual” under the ADA is a two-step inquiry. ... First, the court must determine if the plaintiff “satisfies the ‘requisite skill, experience, education[,] and other job-related requirements’ of the position.” ... The court then considers whether the plaintiff can, with or without a reasonable accommodation, perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m); ... Essential functions are the “fundamental job duties of the employment position . . . not including the marginal functions of the position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1).

Section 1630.2(m) defines a qualified individual by requiring job prerequisites and the ability to perform essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation; § 1630.2(n)(3) lists evidence relevant to whether a function is essential.

Peters v. Clark County · filed 2023-05-18(m), (n)(3)

To determine whether a plaintiff is a “qualified individual,” courts engage in a two-step inquiry to analyze (1) “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”; and (2) “whether ‘with or without reasonable accommodation,’ the individual is able to ‘perform the essential functions of such position.’” Anthony v. Trax Int’l Corp., 955 F.3d 1123, 1128 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m)). ... Evidence of whether a particular function is essential includes, “(i) the employer’s judgment as to which functions are essential; (ii) written job descriptions prepared before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job; (iii) the amount of time spent on the job performing the function; (iv) the consequences of not requiring the incumbent to perform the function,” and other considerations. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3). ... Peters thus was not a qualified individual under the ADA, and summary judgment is appropriate on both her ADA discrimination and state law disability-discrimination claims.

Section 1630.2(n) requires an ADA plaintiff to meet the position’s job-related requirements and to be able to perform its essential functions, with or without reasonable accommodation.

WILSON v. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA · filed 2023-11-20(n)

Whether a plaintiff is qualified within the meaning of the ADA involves two inquiries: (1) whether the individual has the requisite skill, experience, education, and other job-related requirements of the position; and (2) whether the individual, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of that position. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n); Buskirk v. Apollo Metals, 307 F.3d 160, 168 (3d Cir. 2002).

Section 1630.2(m) defines a qualified individual by job prerequisites and the ability to perform essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation, while § 1630.2(n)(3) identifies evidence relevant to determining which functions are essential.

Farfan v. STATION CASINOS, LLC. · filed 2024-01-29(m), (n)(3)

To determine whether a plaintiff is a “qualified individual,” courts engage in a two-step inquiry to analyze (1) “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”; and (2) “whether ‘with or without reasonable accommodation,’ the individual is able to ‘perform the essential functions of such position.’” Anthony v. Trax Int’l Corp., 955 F.3d 1123, 1128 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m)). ... Such evidence includes but is not limited to the written job description, a declaration from a supervisor, other employee’s work experience in the same position, or the “employer’s judgment as to which functions are essential.” Id. at 1238 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)).

Section 1630.2(m) defines a qualified individual as someone who can perform the essential functions of the position with or without reasonable accommodation.

Vangieson v. Austin · filed 2024-02-26(m)

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, Vangieson must offer evidence that he was qualified for his position; that is, that he could perform the essential functions of a Senior Auditor with or without a reasonable accommodation. See id. at 1175 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m)).

Section 1630.2(m) defines a qualified individual as one who meets the job requirements and can perform the essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation, while § 1630.2(n)(1) defines essential functions as the position's fundamental job duties.

Randolph v. Bath & Body Works, Inc. · filed 2025-06-18(m), (n)(1)

“The term ‘qualified,’ with respect to an individual with a disability, means that the individual satisfies the requisite skill, experience, education and other job-related requirements of the employment position such individual holds or desires and, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of such position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m). “Essential functions” are “the fundamental job duties of the employment position the individual with a disability holds or desires.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1). Here, Plaintiff fails to identify his employment position,? let alone allege any of the fundamental job duties of the position. He also fails to allege what reasonable accommodation he requested or that he could perform the essential functions of the job with said reasonable accommodation.

Section 1630.2(m) requires a qualified individual with a disability to be able, with or without reasonable accommodation, to perform the essential functions of the job, which § 1630.2(n)(1) defines as the job’s fundamental duties.

Marrero v. Texas Disposal Systems, Inc. · filed 2025-05-27(m) (n)(1)

As defined by the Code of Federal Regulations, a “qualified individual with a disability” is “an individual with a disability who satisfies the requisite skill, experience, education and other job-related requirements of the employment position such individual holds or desires, and who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of such position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m). “The term essential functions means the fundamental job duties of the employment position the individual with a disability holds or desires.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1). ... Here, the requested accommodation of working from home would have relieved Plaintiff of an essential function of her role to provide Smith System training, which required driving a vehicle in person. (Mot. Summ. J., Dkt. 22, at 19). ... Therefore, Plaintiff’s ADA retaliation claims fail as a matter of law.

Section 1630.2 identifies major life activities and defines a qualified individual and essential functions for determining ADA coverage and job qualification with or without reasonable accommodation.

Robertson · filed 2025-10-27(i), (m), (n)(1)

With respect to the first prong, the ADA defines a “disabled person” as an individual who has “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the individual's major life activities.” ... “major life activities” includes “standing,” “sitting,” and “lifting,” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2. ... Having now determined that Robertson has alleged a disability under the ADA, the Court must next analyze whether Robertson is a qualified individual under the ADA. ... A qualified individual also “satisfies the requisite skill, experience, education and other job-related requirements of the employment position such individual holds[.]” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m). Federal regulations define essential functions as those “fundamental job duties of the employment position the individual with a disability holds[.]” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1). ... Thus, Robertson has alleged sufficient facts to show he is a qualified individual because he alleges that he successfully performed the job when he was given the accommodations.

Section 1630.2(h) includes disorders affecting the hemic and lymphatic body systems within the definition of a physical or mental impairment.

Praseuth v. Newell-Rubbermaid, Inc. · filed 2002-07-18(h)

ITP clearly falls within the category of disorder affecting the hemic and lymphatic body systems. As such, the court concludes that ITP constitutes an impairment.

Section 1630.2(j) defines “substantially limited” by comparing the condition, manner, or duration of performing a major life activity with that of the average person in the general population.

Jane A. Gagliardo John Gagliardo v. Connaught Laboratories, Inc. · filed 2002-11-22(j)

In the EEOC’s regulations, “substantially limited” is defined as: “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).

(h)(1) treats a physiological disorder, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting a listed body system as a physical impairment.

Swart v. Premier Parks Corp. · filed 2004-02-19(h)(1)

We note initially that plaintiff’s counsel appears to confuse an “impairment” with a “major life activity,” as defined in the ADA. A physical impairment is defined as: Any 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). Applying this definition, the district court found that plaintiff’s impairments were breast cancer, loss of her left breast, and the resulting disfigurement.

Section 1630.2(h) defines physical or mental impairment to include mental or psychological disorders such as emotional or mental illness.

Early v. Employment Department · filed 2015-10-14(h)

Claimant suffered from depression, and it is undisputed that her depression was a long-term physical impairment under 29 CFR section 1630.2(h).

Section 1630.2(h) defines a physical impairment as a physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more body systems, including the musculoskeletal system.

Castagnozzi v. Phoenix Beverages, Inc. · filed 2016-09-26(h)

That phrase is defined, however, in the EEOC’s regulations, which define a physical impairment as “[a]ny physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more body systems, such as neurological, musculo-skeletal, special sense organs, respiratory (including speech organs), cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genitourinary, immune, circulatory, hemic, lymphatic, skin, and endocrine ...” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h).

Section 1630.2(h)(1) includes a physiological disorder or condition affecting the neurological system within the definition of an impairment.

Baker v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese · filed 2018-02-27(h)(1)

Further, having headaches and dizziness for months following a concussion could be interpreted by an employer as a “physiological disorder or condition . . . affecting . . . neurological” systems, 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1), and thus an impairment. The parties thus have a triable dispute as to whether RCBSD regarded Baker as disabled.

Section 1630.2(h) treats physiological disorders or conditions affecting body systems, and mental or psychological disorders, as impairments.

Ramirez v. Board of Regents for the Regional University System of Oklahoma · filed 2021-01-08(h)

Such an impairment includes: “[a]ny physiological disorder or condition . . . or anatomical loss affecting one or more body systems,” including “reproductive, digestive,” or “genitourinary,” or “[a]ny mental or psychological disorder, such as . . . emotional or mental illness.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h); see Carter, 662 F.3d at 1142; see also Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624, 632 (1998).

Section 1630.2 treats autism as an impairment that substantially limits brain function and therefore qualifies an individual for ADA protection.

Doherty v. Bice · filed 2021-09-15

But the 2008 ADA Amendments Act (“ADAAA”) and the accompanying regulations make clear that autism is a type of impairment that will “substantially limit brain function,” and thus qualify an individual for protection under the ADA, see 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2, and the Second Circuit has explained that the regulations “specifically identify[] autism as an impairment that substantially limits brain function in virtually all cases,” McElwee v. County of Orange, 700 F.3d 635, 643 (2d Cir. 2012).

Section 1630.2(h) defines an impairment as a physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more body systems; a physical characteristic such as morbid obesity qualifies only when caused by an underlying physiological disorder or condition.

Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center - El Paso v. Niehay · filed 2023-06-30(h)

Today, the federal regulatory definition of “impairment” is not much different from its definition in 1993. ... An “impairment” is Any physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more body systems, such as neurological, musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory (including speech organs), cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genitourinary, immune, circulatory, hemic, lymphatic, skin, and endocrine[.] ... Reading the regulation as a whole and in context shows that a “physiological disorder or condition” means an abnormal bodily function or state. ... In other words, to show an impairment, Niehay would need to show that her morbid obesity is due to a physiological disease or condition.

Section 1630.2(j)(3)(iii) treats autism as an impairment that substantially limits brain function, supporting a finding that a person with autism has an ADA disability.

Ramsey v. Lake Havasu City, City of · filed 2023-09-27(j)(3)(iii)

The enabling regulations explicitly list autism as an example of a disabling impairment. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(iii) (“it should easily be concluded that . . . autism substantially limits brain function”).

Section 1630.2(h)(1) defines a physical impairment to include a physiological disorder or condition affecting one or more body systems, and an alleged symptom does not qualify without an underlying disorder or condition.

McCarthy v. Mass General Brigham Incorporated · filed 2024-07-15(h)(1)

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) regulations, which interpret the ADA, define a physical impairment as “[a]ny physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more body systems, such as neurological, musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory (including speech organs), cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genitourinary, immune, circulatory, hemic, lymphatic, skin, and endocrine.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1); Mancini v. City of Providence, 909 F.3d 32, 40 (1st Cir. 2018). ... Accordingly, “for obesity to qualify as a physical impairment--and thus a disability—under the ADA, it must result from an underlying physiological disorder or condition.” Morriss, 817 F.3d at 1109; Richardson, 926 F.3d at 891. The same is true here where there is no underlying disorder or condition alleged.

Section 1630.2(h)(1) includes physiological disorders or conditions affecting one or more body systems within physical or mental impairments; obesity alone is not an impairment unless it results from an underlying physiological disorder.

Wilson · filed 2025-11-26(h)(1)

Physical or mental impairments include “[a]ny physiological disorder or condition . . . affecting one or more body systems . . . .” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1). ... Obesity alone is not an impairment. Instead, “an individual's weight is generally a physical characteristic that qualifies as a physical impairment only if it falls outside the normal range and it occurs as the result of a physiological disorder. Both requirements must be satisfied before a physical impairment can be found.”

Section 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) lists changes to the work environment as a possible accommodation, but a job function may still require a specific work environment.

Sherlyn Brown v. Milwaukee Board of School Dire · filed 2017-05-04(o)(1)(ii)

It simply lists changes to work environment as one possible way of accommodating a disabled employee.

Section 1630.2(o)(ii) includes modifications or adjustments to the work environment that enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of the position within the definition of reasonable accommodation.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Drydock Co. · filed 1996-12-18(o)(ii)

The Guidelines implementing the ADA include within their definition of reasonable accommodation, “[m]odifications or adjustments to the work environment ... that enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of that position_” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(ii) (1995).

These provisions require an employer to consider telecommuting as a potential reasonable accommodation, define essential functions as the fundamental duties of a job, and treat the employer’s judgment as evidence of which duties are essential.

McNair v. Government of the District of Columbia · filed 2014-01-23(o)(2)(ii), (n)(1), (n)(3)

It is true that an employer must consider telecommuting as a potential form of reasonable accommodation. ... That obligation, however, only goes so far. ... EEOC regulations define “essential functions” as “the fundamental duties of the employment position the individual with a disability holds.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1). ... In determining whether a function is essential to a particular position, the Court is to grant the employer substantial deference. ... See Kalekiristos v. CTF Hotel Mgmt. Corp., 958 F. Supp. 641, 660 (D.D.C. 1997); see also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3) (“Evidence of whether a particular function is essential includes . . . [t]he employer’s judgment as to which functions are essential.”). ... As deference is due to the employer’s claims regarding essential functions, and as the District has offered substantial evidence to support those claims, the Court concludes as a matter of law that McNair could not perform her job with the flexible schedule she sought.

Section 1630.2(r) requires an individualized assessment and four listed factors for direct threat, while § 1630.2(p)(v) adds the accommodation’s operational impact as an undue-hardship factor.

Rhoads v. Stormont Vail HealthCare, Inc. · filed 2023-06-09(r); (p)(v)

“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). Factors to consider 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. ... The court concludes that Defendant’s decision that Plaintiff posed a direct threat to patients was objectively reasonable. ... The factors to be considered for undue hardship under the regulations are substantially the same, but also add an additional factor for the “impact of the accommodation upon the operation of the facility, including the impact on the ability of other employees to perform their duties and the impact on the facility’s ability to conduct business.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(p)(v). ... Although the court is without evidence to consider many of the factors, the court finds that the first factor decides the issue. ... This requested accommodation is both an undue burden and unreasonable.

Section 1630.2(p) requires an employer claiming undue hardship to substantiate that defense with evidence and a case-specific analysis rather than unsupported assertions.

United States v. City and County of Denver · filed 1996-10-10(p)

[A]n employer cannot simply assert that a needed accommodation will cause it undue- hardship, as defined in § 1630.2(p), and thereupon be relieved of the duty to provide accommodation. Rather, an employer will have to present evidence and demonstrate that the accommodation will, in fact, cause it undue hardship. Whether a particular accommodation will impose an undue hardship for a particular employer is determined on a case by case basis. ... Nor has the City presented evidence and demonstrated that the accommodation will, in fact, cause it undue hardship. ... In short, the City offers no evidence that it has conducted an analysis to determine whether the proposed accommodation is reasonable and whether it actually presents an undue hardship.

Section 1630.2(p) identifies undue-hardship factors including the accommodation's cost, effects on expenses and resources, facility operations, employees' ability to work, and business operations.

Garcia-Ayala v. Parentals · filed 2000-05-18(p)

Under the EEOC guidelines, 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(p), factors to be considered as to undue hardship include the cost of the accommodation, the effect on expenses and resources, the impact of the accommodation on the operation of the facility (including on other employees' ability to do their jobs) and the impact on the facility's ability to conduct business. On this record there is no discernible negative impact on any of these factors; indeed, the record shows hardly any discernable impact at all on the employer from the requested accommodation.

The undue-hardship assessment considers the accommodation’s impact on other employees’ ability to perform their duties and on the facility’s ability to conduct business.

Holt v. Olmsted Township Board of Trustees · filed 1998-09-18(p)(2)(v)

Moreover, EEOC regulations suggest that “the impact on the ability of other employees to perform their duties and the impact on the facility’s ability to conduct business” should be considered. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(p)(2)(v).

Section 1630.2(p)(1) defines undue hardship as significant difficulty or expense, evaluated in light of the circumstances of the accommodation.

Thrasher v. UAB Hospital Management LLC · filed 2024-09-30(p)(1)

Finally, an accommodation would impose an undue hardship on an employer if it would “requir[e] significant difficulty or expense” when considered in light of several factors. 42 U.S.C. § 12111(10)(A); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(p)(1). ... For issues on which the party moving for summary judgment would bear the burden of proof at trial, such as the hardship imposed by a disability accommodation, the moving party must come forward with credible evidence that would entitle it to a directed verdict if it wishes to avoid trial. ... The evidence offered by UAB falls short of satisfying this standard.

Section 1630.2(p) requires an agency claiming undue hardship to show that the proposed accommodation would significantly disrupt its operations or cause another undue hardship.

Murray v. National Aeronautics and Space Admin · filed 2023-06-22(p)

Simply put, the agency has not provided eno ugh to show that the telework or flexible schedule accommodation would cause an undue disruption to its operations or other undue hardship.

An accommodation that shifts job duties to coworkers and interferes with their work may impose an undue hardship on the employer.

Dey v. Milwaukee Forge · filed 1996-10-29(p)(2)(v)

Requiring fellow workers to assist the plaintiff would involve a reallocation of some job duties. It also would impact on the ability of other employees to perform their duties and on the ability of the defendant to operate its business. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(p)(2)(v). Such accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the defendant and is not required under the ADA.

An employer claiming undue hardship must present evidence that the requested accommodation would cause significant difficulty or expense.

Fink v. Printed Circuit Corp. · filed 2002-04-25(p)(1)

Circuit must, therefore, submit evidence tending to show that the requested accommodation would present “significant difficulty or expense”. ... As the contested arguments of the parties suggest, a genuine issue of material fact remains to be tried with respect to whether Circuit would face an undue hardship because of the requested accommodation.

The effect of an accommodation on other employees’ ability to perform their duties is a factor in determining undue hardship.

Crabill v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education · filed 2010-04-14(p)(2)(v)

Assuming that the Plaintiffs request for a flexible work schedule was reasonable, the forecast of evidence shows that providing this accommodation would have amounted to an undue hardship on the Defendant. ... This additional burden on the Plaintiffs coworkers would have disrupted the counseling services provided to all of Myers Park’s students [Spivey Aff., Doc. 19-9 at ¶ 4]. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(p)(2)(v) (impact on other employees’ ability to perform duties is relevant factor in determining undue hardship).

Section 1630.2 defines major life activities and substantial limitation for disability status and treats essential functions as fundamental job duties relevant to whether an individual is qualified.

England v. ENBI Indiana, Inc. · filed 2000-01-14(f), (j)(3)(i), (n)(1), (n)(3)

An impairment is not a disability within the meaning of the ADA if it merely renders an individual unable to perform a particular job for a particular employer. ... That is to say, the individual must be significantly restricted in the ability to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes. ... The regulations define essential functions as the “fundamental job duties of the employment position the individual with a disability holds.” ... As a practical matter, “the employer is entitled to define the ... essential scope [of a job].” ... However, we must look to see whether the employer actually requires all employees in a particular position to perform the allegedly essential functions.

Sections 1630.2(g), (i), and (j) mean that an impairment must substantially limit a major life activity, and inability to perform one particular job alone does not substantially limit working; § 1630.2(n) treats basic, fundamental duties as essential functions; and § 1630.2(o) defines reasonable accommodation but does not require restructuring jobs, creating jobs, or transferring an employee into an occupied position.

Rayha v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · filed 1996-10-11(g), (i), (j), (n), and (o)

A disability is “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of the individual.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(g). Working is considered under the regulations to be a major life activity. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i). ... “the inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation on the major life activity of working.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j); ... The essential functions of an employment position includes the basic, fundamental duties of the job — the marginal duties associated with the job are not taken into consideration in determining a disabled employee’s qualifications. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n); ... Reasonable accommodation includes the modification or adjustment of an employee’s work environment to make it possible for that person to perform the essential functions of a job or to enjoy the same benefits and privileges of employment that are available to any person without a disability. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o).

Section 1630.2(o)(ii) treats an accommodation as reasonable only if it enables the employee to perform the essential functions of the job.

Pickering v. City of Atlanta · filed 1999-11-04(o)(ii)

An accommodation is reasonable only if it enables the employee to perform the essential functions of her job.

Section 1630.2(n)(1) defines essential functions as the fundamental duties of the position, while § 1630.2(p)(2)(v) does not require an accommodation that makes other employees work harder.

Burnett v. Pizza Hut of America, Inc. · filed 2000-03-08(n)(1); (p)(2)(v)

“The term ‘essential functions’ is defined as ‘the fundamental job duties of the employment position the individual with a disability holds or desires.’ ” ... “Whether a particular function is essential is a factual inquiry.” ... For that matter, an accommodation that would result in other employees having to work harder is not required.

The regulation makes an accommodation reasonable only when it enables the employee to perform essential job functions and identifies essential functions as fundamental duties, including duties that must be distributed among a limited number of employees.

Earl v. Mervyns, Inc. · filed 2000-03-30(o)(2)(ii), (n)(2)(1), (n)(2)(ii)

"Essential functions" are the fundamental job duties of a position that an individual with a disability is actually required to perform. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(2)(1). ... A job function also may be essential if there are a limited number of employees among whom performance of the job can be distributed. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(2)(ii); Holbrook v. City of Alpharetta, 112 F.3d 1522, 1526 (11th Cir.1997). ... In light of the importance of Appellant's timely presence at her job, in conjunction with Appellee's emphasis on the importance of punctuality, we conclude punctuality is an essential function of Appellant's job as Store Area Coordinator.

Section 1630.2 defines essential functions as the fundamental duties of the job, identifies evidence relevant to whether a function is essential, and defines reasonable accommodation as modifications or adjustments that enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform those functions.

Andrews v. Commonwealth of VA · filed 2000-09-29(n)(1), (n)(3), (o)(1)(ii)

"Essential functions" are defined as "the fundamental job duties of the employment position the individual with a disability holds or desires." 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1). Evidence of whether a particular function is essential includes, but is not limited to: (i) The employer's judgment as to which functions are essential; (ii) Written job descriptions prepared before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job; (iii) The amount of time spent on the job performing the function; (iv) The consequences of not requiring the incumbent to perform the function; (v) The terms of a collective bargaining agreement; (vi) The work experience of past incumbents in the job; and/or (vii) The current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3) (1998). Essential functions of the job of corrections officer at Mecklenberg include the ability to work "all shifts/or posts" and to supervise inmates from assigned posts in order to maintain security, custody, control and safety. ... Even if Andrews could not perform the essential functions of the job without accommodation, she would still be a qualified individual with a disability if she could perform the essential functions of the job with a reasonable accommodation. "Reasonable accommodation" is defined as: "Modifications or adjustments to the work environment, or to the manner or circumstances under which the position is 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)(1)(ii).

Job restructuring may address only marginal functions and may not eliminate an essential function of the job.

Thompson v. Cendant Corp. · filed 2001-02-05(o)(2)(ii)

Job restructuring, although possible, is restricted to only marginal functions and should not encompass any essential duty of the job in question.

A reasonable accommodation must enable an individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of the position.

Hatchett v. Philander Smith College · filed 2001-06-01(o)(l)(i)

A reasonable accommodation is one which enables a individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of the position. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(l)(i). ... The accommodation requested by Hatchett does not enable her to perform the essential functions of the job. Even if allowing Hatchett to work only four hours a day were reasonable, she still is not able to perform the essential functions while at work.

The regulation requires “substantially limits” to be construed broadly and defines essential functions as fundamental job duties, excluding marginal duties; the court applied these standards to the disability and stair-climbing disputes.

Stewart v. County of Salem · filed 2017-03-31(j)(1)(i) (n)

What constitutes a disability must be construed broadly under both the ADA and NJLAD. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(i) (“Substantially limits” “shall be construed broadly in favor of expansive coverage” and “is not meant to be a demanding standard.”); ... (1) In general. The term essential functions means the fundamental job duties of the employment position the individual with a disability holds or desires. The term “essential functions” does not include the marginal functions of the position.

Section 1630.2(n)(1) identifies essential functions as an employee’s fundamental job duties, while § 1630.2(i)(2) says that “major” life activities should not be interpreted under a demanding standard.

Smith v. Advancepierre Foods, Inc. · filed 2020-06-26(n)(1) (i)(2)

Thus, disability or not, an employee must be able to perform the “fundamental job duties.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1). ... And “‘major’ shall not be interpreted strictly to create a demanding standard.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i)(2).

Section 1630.2 requires “substantially limits” to be read broadly, permits an impairment to qualify without preventing or severely restricting a major life activity, and treats a work-environment modification enabling performance of essential functions as a reasonable accommodation.

Kande v. Dimensions Health Corporation · filed 2020-12-02(j)(1)(i) (j)(1)(ii) (o)(1)(ii)

Thus, the relevant regulations now provide that “[t]he term ‘substantially limits’ shall be construed broadly in favor of expansive coverage, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(i). ... “An impairment need not prevent, or significantly or severely restrict, the individual from performing a major life activity in order to be considered substantially limiting.” ... A reasonable accommodation is one that “enables [a qualified] individual with a disability . . . to perform the essential functions of [a] position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii). ... Relevant here, a reasonable accommodation includes “modifications or adjustments to the work environment 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.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii).

The regulation defines when an impairment substantially limits a major life activity and identifies a reasonable accommodation as one that enables a qualified employee to perform essential job functions.

Israelitt v. Enterprise Services LLC · filed 2021-03-02(j)(l)(ii), (o)(1)(ii)

“Substantially limits” is defined as “significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration to the condition, manner, or duration under which the average person in the general population can perform that some major life activity,” or the inability “to perform a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(l)(ii). ... “A reasonable accommodation is one that (1) ‘enables [a qualified] individual with a disability . . . to perform the essential functions of [a] position,’ 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii); or (2) ‘enable[s] [an] employee with a disability to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment as are enjoyed by . . . other similarly situated employees without disabilities,’ id. § 1630.2(o)(1)(iii).”

The regulation makes substantial-limits analysis irrelevant to regarded-as coverage, defines impairment broadly, excludes only objectively transitory-and-minor impairments, and exempts employers from providing reasonable accommodation to solely regarded-as individuals without barring retaliation claims.

Saley v. Caney Fork, LLC · filed 2012-08-10(j)(2), (h)(1), (e)(2)(iii), (o)(4)

Whether an individual’s impairment “substantially limits” a major life activity is “not relevant” to coverage under the “regarded as” prong. ... Importantly, the regulations implementing the ADAAA, consistent with Congress’s broad purpose to liberalize the ADA, broadly define “physical or mental impairment” as “[a]ny physiological disorder or condition ... affecting one or more body systems, such as neurological, musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory (including speech organs), cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genitourinary, immune, circulatory, hemic, lymphatic, skin, [or] endocrine.” ... Therefore, drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party, the Court finds that Plaintiff has produced sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether he suffers from an actual or perceived impairment affecting one or more systems as defined in 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1). ... Protection under the ADAAA’s “regarded as” prong only extends to an “actual or perceived impairment that is not both transitory and minor.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(e)(2)(iii). ... The relevant inquiry is whether the actual or perceived impairment is objectively “transitory and minor,” not whether the employer subjectively believed the impairment to be transitory and minor. ... Therefore, § 1630.2(o)(4) does not raise a procedural bar against a retaliation claim brought by a plaintiff proceeding under the “regarded as” prong. Rather, § 1630.2(o )(4) plainly relieves employers of the duty to provide reasonable accommodations to individuals only “regarded as” disabled, but still leaves employers liable for terminating employees who are retaliated against for making a good-faith request for a reasonable accommodation.

Sections 1630.2(h)(1) and (l)(1) treat a neurological disorder as an impairment and cover an employer's perception that an impairment is substantially limiting.

Deas v. River West, L.P. · filed 1998-09-03(l)(1), (h)(1)

As it is uncontested that Deas’ seizures constitute an "impairment," this case involves the first of the three scenarios outlined above (i.e., where an individual has an impairment that is erroneously perceived by the employer as a substantially limiting impairment).

The regulation's regarded-as prong treats an individual as disabled when a covered entity treats the person as having a substantially limiting impairment, even if the person has no such impairment.

Olson v. General Electric Astrospace AKA Martin-Marrietta Astrospace · filed 1996-12-18(l)(1)-(3)

The regulations provide that being “regarded as having such an impairment” means: ... (3) Has none of the impairments defined in paragraphs (h)(1) or (2) of this section but is treated by a covered entity as having a substantially limiting impairment. ... Thus, Olson would be disabled within the meaning of the ADA if GE regarded Olson as having a disabling impairment.

Section 1630.2 recognizes that a person may be regarded as disabled when an employer treats an impairment as substantially limiting a major life activity, and the court held that the evidence could support a jury finding of that status.

McInnis v. Alamo Community College District · filed 2000-03-20

Furthermore, an individual may be "regarded as disabled" if he has a physical or mental impairment that does not substantially limit major life activities but nonetheless is treated by a covered entity as constituting such a limitation. ... Construing all of the evidence and factual inferences in favor of McInnis, especially the testimony of ACCD's own ADA compliance coordinator, and irrespective of whether he suffered an actual disability, there is ample evidence from which a reasonable jury could find that ACCD perceived or regarded McInnis as disabledbecause he was substantially limited in his major life activity of speaking.

An individual is regarded as having a disability when an impairment that does not substantially limit major life activities is treated by a covered entity as substantially limiting.

Thomas v. Northern Telecom, Inc. · filed 2000-10-11(l)(1)

In addition, an individual is regarded as having a disability if she “[h]as a physical or mental impairment that does not substantially limit major life activities but is treated by a covered entity as constituting such limitation.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(Z )(1). Plaintiffs factual allegation that Defendant gave her excessive work relative to other employees contradicts her unsupported statement that Defendant regarded her as disabled.

Section 1630.2(i) treats a person as disabled when an employer regards a physical or mental impairment that does not substantially limit a major life activity as substantially limiting one.

Shaw v. Greenwich Anesthesiology Associates, PC · filed 2001-04-05(i)

EEOC regulations, which are accorded weight in interpreting the ADA, provide three definitions of “regarded as disabled,” only one of which is relevant here: a person is regarded as disabled if she “[h]as a physical or mental impairment that does not substantially limit a major life activity but is treated by the employer as constituting such a limitation.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i).

The regulation recognizes a person as disabled under the regarded-as theory when an employer treats the person's impairment as substantially limiting a major life activity.

Carter v. Lurleen B. Wallace Junior College · filed 2001-11-19(1)(1)

Under the ADA regulations, a plaintiff is regarded as disabled if his impairment is treated by the employer as constituting a limitation. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(1)(1).

Section 1630.2(l)(3) treats a person as disabled when a covered entity treats the person as having a substantially limiting impairment even though the person has no qualifying impairment.

Cole v. Roadway Express, Inc. · filed 2002-07-31(l)(3)

Therefore, Cole is relegated to demonstrating that he was “treated by [Roadway] as having a substantially limiting impairment.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(1)(3).

The regarded-as provision reaches cases in which myths, fears, and stereotypes affect an employer’s treatment of an individual.

Edwards v. Ford Motor Co. · filed 2002-08-29(Z)

According to the EEOC, the intent behind creating a cause of action for regarded as claims “is to reach those cases in which ‘myths, fears and stereotypes’ affect the employer’s treatment of an individual.”

Section 1630.2(l) covers a person whom an employer treats as having a substantially limiting impairment, even if the person has no such impairment.

Hill v. Pfizer, Inc. · filed 2003-06-03(l)

“Rather, an individual is covered by the ‘regarded as’ prong of the definition of disability in the ADA ... if he ‘has none of the impairments defined in [the definition of the term ‘impairment’] but is treated by a covered entity as having a substantially limiting impairment.’ ”

Section 1630.2(l) treats a person as regarded as disabled when an employer treats an actual or perceived impairment as substantially limiting major life activities; the court found no evidence that Capital Blue Cross did so here.

Dogmanits v. Capital Blue Cross · filed 2005-07-07(l)

An employee is “regarded as” disabled if an employer misinterprets information about an employee’s limitations and precludes the employee from performing a wide range of jobs. ... Even if viewed in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, the evidence before this Court could not persuade any reasonable jury to conclude that Plaintiff was “regarded as” disabled within the definition of the ADA. This Court finds that Plaintiffs “regarded as” disabled claim fails as a matter of law.

Section 1630.2(l) defines when an individual is regarded as disabled, including when an employer treats an impairment as substantially limiting a major life activity or treats the individual as having a disability.

Mayon J. Hoard v. CUH2A, Inc. · filed 2007-06-27(l)

An individual is “regarded as” disabled if he “(1) has an impairment that does not substantially limit a major life activity, but is treated by an employer as though it does; (2) has an impairment that limits a major life activity only because of others’ attitudes towards the impairment; or (3) has no impairment whatsoever, but is treated by an employer as having a disability a recognized by the ADA.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(l). ... We agree with the conclusion of the district court that Hoard failed to present sufficient evidence that CUH2A regarded Hoard’s Graves disease as substantially limiting his ability to work. ... These comments fail to establish that CUH2A treated Hoard as though his Graves disease substantially limited his ability to work, and the comments fail to establish that CUH2A regarded Hoard as “unable to work in a broad class of jobs.”

Section 1630.2(l) treats a person as regarded as disabled when a covered entity treats the person as having a substantially limiting impairment, including when no such impairment exists.

BEARD v. PHILADELPHIA CORPORATION FOR AGING · filed 2023-07-21(l)

A person is “regarded as” having a disability for purposes of the ADA when the person (1) has an impairment that does not substantially limit major life activities but is treated as such; (2) has an impairment that does substantially limit major life activities but only as a result of the attitudes of others toward such impairment; or (3) has no such impairment, but the covered entity treats that person as having a substantially limiting impairment. ... Company-wide COVID-19 mitigation policies like PCA’s do not mean that the employer regards all the employees as disabled under the ADA. Nor does being required to comply with those policies constitute a disability.

Section 1630.2(l)(1) treats a person as regarded as having a disability when an employer subjects the person to a prohibited action because of an actual or perceived impairment, whether or not the impairment substantially limits a major life activity.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Army Sustainment, LLC · filed 2023-09-26(l)(1)

An individual is disabled under § 12102(1)(C)’s “regarded as” prong “if the individual is subjected to a prohibited action [e.g., firing, demotion] because of an actual or perceived physical or mental impairment, whether or not that impairment substantially limits, or is perceived to substantially limit, a major life activity.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(l)(1). ... As previously discussed, there is sufficient evidence from which a jury could conclude that AFS subjected Black, Blinn, McElveen, and Rich to an adverse employment action when it placed them on forced, unpaid leave based on AFS’s assertion that their prescription medications could interfere with their ability to safely perform their work duties. This evidence is likewise sufficient to meet the “regarded as” disabled definition for the same reasons, especially in the context of AFS’s policy which provided that employees deemed unable to work under the policy will be deemed disabled and therefore able to apply for short-term disability benefits.

A person is regarded as disabled when an employer takes a prohibited action because of an actual or perceived impairment, whether or not the employer believes it limits a major life activity.

Amos v. Welles · filed 2020-03-02(l)(1)

Under section 12102(3), which Congress added in the ADAAA, an individual bringing a “regarded as” claim need only show that an employer subjected him to an action that the ADA prohibits because of an actual or perceived impairment regardless of whether the employer perceived the impairment to limit the individual in a major life activity.

Section 1630.2(o)(4) does not require an employer to accommodate an individual who is only regarded as disabled.

Williams v. Oklahoma Department of Veterans Affairs · filed 2021-10-28(o)(4)

As a matter of law, the interactive process contemplated by the Act does not provide a separate basis for relief, and an employer has no obligation to provide an accommodation for an individual who is “regarded as” disabled.

Section 1630.2(l) covers an employee whom an employer regards as having an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity, even if the employer’s perception is mistaken.

Dollinger v. State Insurance Fund · filed 1999-04-19(l)

Accordingly, an individual who can show that an employer made an employment decision because of a perception of disability based on “myth, fear or stereotype,” will satisfy the “regarded as” part of the definition of disability.

Section 1630.2(l) does not require a mistaken perception of disability to be based on myth or stereotyping.

Capizzi v. County of Placer · filed 2001-03-26(l)

Neither the regulations nor the statute require that the misperception be based on myth or stereotyping.

An employer’s request for an objective assessment of an employee’s vision, without more, does not show that it regarded the employee as disabled.

Babb v. Maryville Anesthesiologists, P.C. · filed 2019-01-16(g)(1)(iii)

29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(g)(1)(iii) (2012) ("[b]eing regarded as having such an impairment ... means that the individual has been subjected to an action prohibited by the ADA as amended because of an actual or perceived impairment that is not both 'transitory and minor' "). ... Thus, both Sullivan and Pena require the conclusion that defendant's request that plaintiff provide them with "an objective assessment of her vision" from her ophthalmologist, without more, is not evidence that defendant regarded her as disabled.

A blanket vaccination policy does not, by itself, show that an employer regarded an employee as disabled.

Liner v. Terminix Pest Control, Inc. · filed 2023-11-17

The Court finds that Defendant did not regard Plaintiff as disabled by instituting a blanket vaccination policy.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) describes an interactive accommodation process to identify disability-related limitations and possible accommodations, while § 1630.2(r) requires direct-threat determinations to be individualized, evidence-based assessments of safety and specified risk factors.

Hine v. Prince George's County, Maryland · filed 2024-03-04(o)(3), (r)

The ADA regulations provide that “[t]o 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.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(0)(3). “This process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” /d. ... A “direct threat” consists of “significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by a reasonable accommodation.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r); see also 28 C.F.R. § 35.139 (establishing an equivalent direct threat provision for Title II of the ADA). A determination that an individual poses a “direct threat” must be based on an “individualized assessment of the employee’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.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r); see also 28 C.F.R. § 35.139(b) (providing an equivalent requirement under Title II). Among other factors, the individualized assessment must consider the duration of the risk; the nature and severity of the potential harm; the likelihood that the potential harm will occur; and the imminence of the potential harm. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r); see also 28 C.F.R. § 35.139(b). ... This argument fails for two reasons. First, as discussed above, it is undisputed that the County did not conduct an individualized assessment of Hine’s ability to perform the duties of an operational firefighter and thus necessarily did not conduct the required individualized assessment of whether he could perform those functions safely. See supra part 1V.B. Because a “direct threat” defense must be based on an individualized assessment, the Court cannot grant summary judgment to the County on this basis. See Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 536 U.S. at 86.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) limits the ADA interactive process to an employer and a qualified individual.

Teague v. Northwestern Memorial Hospital · filed 2011-10-31(o)(3)

Indeed, the federal regulations implementing the ADA contemplate an “interactive process” only between an employer and a “qualified individual,” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o )(3).

Section 1630.2(j) remains guidance for deciding whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity, while § 1630.2(o)(3) requires an interactive process to identify limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and Judith Keane, Intervening v. Sears, Roebuck & Company · filed 2005-08-10(j)(1), (j), (o)(3)

Nothing in the Court’s opinion suggests that it intended to preclude lower courts from seeking guidance from § 1630.2(j). If it had intended to bar future reference to the EEOC’s regulations interpreting “disability,” the Court first would have addressed the question of what, if any, deference they are due. It specifically declined to do so. ... According to an EEOC regulation, the purpose of the interactive process is to “identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). This step imposes a duty on employers to engage in a flexible give- and-take with the disabled employee so that together they can determine what accommodation would enable the employee to continue working.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) recognizes that determining a reasonable accommodation may require the employer to initiate an informal, interactive process with the qualified employee.

Bultemeyer v. Fort Wayne Community Schools · filed 1996-11-18(o)(3)

As the federal regulations implementing the ADA state, “[t]o determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the [employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process with the qualified individual with a disability in need of the accommodation.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3) (1995); ... It is clear, then, that the burden was on both FWCS and Bultemeyer to engage in the interactive process.

The regulation suggests that a covered entity may need to initiate an informal, interactive process with a qualified individual, but it does not mandate that an employer provide an interactive process.

Phelps v. Optima Health, Inc. · filed 2001-05-30(o)(iii)

Although the EEOC regulations that implement the ADA do not mandate that an employer provide an interactive process, see Jacques v. Clean-Up Group, Inc., 96 F.3d 506, 513-14 (1st Cir. 1996), they do suggest that "it may be necessary for the covered entity to initiate an informal, interactive process with the qualified individual," 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(iii).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) may require an employer to initiate an informal interactive process with an employee seeking reasonable accommodation, but the process is unnecessary when no reasonable factfinder could find the employee capable of performing the job with or without accommodation.

Sullivan v. Raytheon Company · filed 2001-08-29(o)(3)

As Raytheon points out, the ADA's interpretive regulations "may require an employer 'to initiate an informal, interactive process' with the individual seeking accommodation." Soto-Ocasio v. Federal Express Corp., 150 F.3d 14, 19 (1st Cir. 1998) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3)). However, there is no such requirement under Massachusetts law in chapter 151B. Moreover, even if Raytheon were required to have engaged Sullivan in such an interactive process, we found in Soto-Ocasio that an interactive process is not necessary where, as here, no reasonable trier of fact could have found that the employee was capable of performing the job, with or without reasonable accommodation, for which he was seeking reinstatement. See id. Because Sullivan has presented no evidence to indicate that he was capable of returning to work as a security guard, even with a reasonable accommodation, Raytheon was not required to engage with him in an interactive process.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) calls for an informal, interactive process to identify an employee’s precise disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

Burke v. Iowa Methodist Medical Center · filed 2002-02-06(o)(3)

To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the [employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process with the [employee] 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 those limitations. ... Because Burke did not request an accommodation or assistance with her disability, IMMC had no obligation to offer an accommodation or to engage in the interactive process.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) calls for an informal interactive process to identify the precise limitations resulting from a disability and potential reasonable accommodations; the process is triggered by either an accommodation request or the employer’s recognition of the need for one.

Swonke v. Sprint Inc. · filed 2004-04-26(o)(3)

The interactive process is triggered either by a request for accommodation by a disabled employee or by the employer’s recognition of the need for such an accommodation.

When an employee requests an accommodation, the employer must participate in an informal interactive process to identify disability-related limitations and possible reasonable accommodations.

Battle v. UPS · filed 2006-02-21(o)(3)

Where the employee requests accommodation, the employer must engage in an "informal, interactive process" with the employee to identify the limitations caused by the disability and the potential reasonable accommodations to overcome those limitations. Fjellestad v. Pizza Hut of Am., Inc., 188 F.3d 944, 951 (8th Cir. 1999), quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). ... While UPS engaged in an interactive process with Battle, the jury apparently believed that UPS did not act in good faith after Dr. Gale submitted his August 27 report indicating that Battle could satisfactorily perform essential job functions, with or without accommodation, and Battle submitted the ADA accommodation form. ... Given the record support for the jury's findings, UPS was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on this issue.

The employer’s duty to engage in an interactive dialogue about reasonable accommodation is not triggered until the employee provides a medical release indicating that the employee can perform the essential job functions with or without reasonable accommodation.

Kitchen v. Summers Continuous Care Center, LLC · filed 2008-05-12(o)(3)

Thus, because there was no release from Dr. Shammaa stating that Plaintiff had the ability to perform the essential functions of her job with or without a reasonable accommodation, Summers’ duty to engage in a dialogue regarding the accommodation was not triggered.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) recognizes that determining a reasonable accommodation may require the employer to initiate an informal, interactive process with the employee to identify limitations and possible accommodations.

Knowles v. Sheriff · filed 2012-02-23(o)(3)

The regulations governing the ADA provide that, to determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation, it may be necessary for an employer “to initiate an informal, interactive process with the individual with a disability in need of an accommodation” to identify the person’s limitations and possible accommodations. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3) (2007).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) supports the rule that, after an employee notifies an employer of a disability and seeks accommodation, failure to engage in the required good-faith interactive process may constitute ADA discrimination.

Snapp v. United Transportation Union · filed 2013-11-05(o)(3)

Such a request would have obligated BNSF to engage in an interactive process with Snapp. Consequently, there is a genuine dispute over whether BNSF engaged in good faith in a required interactive process, and failure to do so would constitute discrimination under the ADA. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) recognizes that a request for reasonable accommodation triggers an informal, interactive process with the individual needing the accommodation.

Kovac v. Superior Dairy, Inc. · filed 2014-02-12(o)(3)

Upon request for reasonable accommodation, plaintiff triggers “an informal, interactive process with the individual with a disability in need of the accommodation.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o )(3).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) concerns the good-faith interactive process for identifying the precise limitations resulting from a disability and potential reasonable accommodations.

Hill v. Associates for Renewal in Education, Inc. · filed 2014-09-29(o)(3)

Upon an employer’s receipt of a request for accommodation, “[t]he interactive process begins” and “both the employer and the employee have a duty to act in good faith” to “identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations” that could overcome those limitations. McNair v. District of Columbia, --- F. Supp. 2d ---, 2014 WL 242913, at *5 (D.D.C. Jan. 23, 2014) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3); Conneen v. MBNA Amer. Bank, N.A., 334 F.3d 318, 333 (3d Cir. 2003)) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[T]he absence of good faith, including unreasonable delays caused by the employer, can serve as evidence of an ADA violation.” Id.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires an informal, bilateral process in which the employer and employee discuss disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc. · filed 2014-12-19(o)(3)

The interactive process involves an informal dialogue between the employee and the employer in which the two parties discuss the issues affecting the employee and potential reasonable accommodations that might address those issues. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). It requires bilateral cooperation and communication.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) contemplates that an employer may need to initiate an informal interactive process to identify an employee’s precise disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

Arthur v. American Showa, Inc. · filed 2015-08-14(o)(3)

The ADA’s regulations indicate that, “[t]o determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation [for a given employee,] it may be necessary for the [employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process with the [employee].” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). The purpose of the interactive process is to “identify the precise limitations resulting from the [employee’s] disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” Id. However, if the employee never requests a reasonable accommodation the employer’s duty to engage in the interactive process is never triggered.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires agencies to initiate an informal, interactive process with a qualified individual with a disability who needs an accommodation.

Lenkiewicz v. Donovan · filed 2015-11-20(o)(3)

To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation, federal regulations require agencies, such as HUD, to “initiate , an informal, interactive process with the qualified individual with a disability in need of accommodation.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). This interactive process is designed to ensure that an agency is fully aware of its employees’ purported disabilities and desired accommodations and possesses the information it needs to comply with its obligations under the Rehabilitation Act.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) describes the interactive process as an informal undertaking in which the employee and employer identify the employee’s precise limitations and potential reasonable accommodations.

Hill v. City of Phoenix · filed 2016-02-08(o)(3)

The interactive process is an informal undertaking in which the employee and the employer attempt to “identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires the employer and employee to engage in an interactive process to identify a reasonable accommodation.

Dones v. Brennan · filed 2015-11-23(o)(3)

“Implicit in the fourth element is the ADA requirement that the employer and employee engage in an interactive process to identify a reasonable accommodation.”

The interactive process associated with reasonable accommodation under Title I does not require negotiations when the requested changes would alter a provider’s fundamental professional judgment, and failure to engage in it alone does not establish liability.

Williams v. Central Vermont Med. Ctr., Inc. · filed 2016-06-10

Lastly, Ms. Williams also asserts that Dr. Brock did not engage in the “interactive process” that applies to Title I claims. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2. To the extent the proposed changes would have required him to alter his fundamental professional judgment, the Court does not believe negotiations were required. ... Further, as noted in the employment context, the failure of an employer to engage in the interactive process cannot, by itself, establish liability. ... In any event, while the record is not clear as to what alterations he would agree to, it is undisputed that Dr. Brock was willing to make some minor changes to the CSA for Ms. Williams. ... Accordingly, if interaction was required, it was completed.

Once an employee reports disability-related limitations and requests an accommodation, the employer must discuss those limitations and potential accommodations, and a sufficiently specific request requires further inquiry into them.

Cady v. Remington Arms Co. · filed 2016-12-02(o)(3)

But once an employee notifies the employer of any limitations and requests an accommodation, the employer must discuss the limitations and potential accommodations with the employee. See Kleiber, 485 F.3d at 871; 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires an employer, when necessary to identify a reasonable accommodation, to initiate an informal interactive process with an employee who has a disability.

Cooley v. East Tennessee Human Resource Agency, Inc. · filed 2017-03-20(o)(3)

Usually, the employer must “initiate an informal, interactive process” with the employee if necessary to find a reasonable accommodation for the employee’s disability. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o )(3). Even if ETHRA failed to work with Cooley, however, “an employer’s failure to engage in the interactive process is actionable only if the employee can demonstrate that she was qualified for the position.”

The regulation says the informal interactive process should identify the employee’s precise disability-related limitations and potential reasonable accommodations to overcome them.

Mack v. Georgetown University · filed 2017-09-27(o)(3)

The EEOC regulations implementing the ADA explain in the definition of “reasonable accommodation” that the “informal, interactive process . . . should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). The Human Resources Analyst position identified by Ms. Mack in November of 2014 was filled before Georgetown’s Human Resources office completed its evaluation of Ms. Mack’s limitations and identified the vacant position for which she was qualified.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) requires the employer and individual with a disability to engage in an interactive process to identify an effective reasonable accommodation.

Jablonski v. Wal-Mart Stores · filed 2018-04-26(o)(3)

WalMart attempted to accommodate Jablonski and adequately engaged in the interactive process. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3); Zivkovic v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 302 F.3d 1080, 1089 (9th Cir. 2002). Jablonski filed leave requests and submitted medical records to WalMart. WalMart officials corresponded with her about her leave, granted multiple leave requests, and spoke to her about her future position. WalMart offered Jablonski several accommodations: personal leave when she ran out of FMLA leave, a ninety-day TAD position that accommodated her medical restrictions, and eventually a permanent cashier position—which she rejected. Jablonski argues that WalMart should have transferred her to another store. But she did not ask to be transferred at the time, and she has not presented any evidence that there were vacant positions for which she was qualified at other stores. Therefore, she has not met her burden of “showing the existence of a reasonable accommodation that would have enabled [her] to perform the essential functions of an available job.” See Dark v. Curry Cty., 451 F.3d 1078, 1088 (9th Cir. 2006).

Subsection (o) requires an employer to engage in an interactive process in good faith to identify a reasonable accommodation for a qualified individual with a disability.

Gardner v. SEPTA · filed 2020-08-18(o)

Relatedly, the District Court correctly determined that, even assuming Gardner was a qualified individual with a disability under the ADA, SEPTA fulfilled its obligation to engage in an “interactive process.” See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o); Taylor, 184 F.3d at 317. To prove otherwise, Gardner had to show that: (1) SEPTA knew he was disabled; (2) Gardner requested accommodations; (3) SEPTA made no “good faith effort to assist [Gardner] in seeking accommodations”; and (4) Gardner “could have been reasonably accommodated but for [SEPTA’s] lack of good faith.” Taylor, 184 F.3d at 319–20. ... We therefore agree with the District Court that no reasonable juror could find that SEPTA failed to engage in the requisite interactive process.

Section 1630.2(o)(3) says that the interactive process should identify the precise limitations caused by a disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.

WATSON v. DREXEL UNIVERSITY · filed 2020-09-28(o)(3)

While the ADA itself does not refer to an “interactive process,” applicable regulations provide that such a process “should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3) (2019).

Section 1630.2(o)(3) treats accommodation discussions as an informal, interactive process requiring good-faith communication and exploration of the employee’s limitations and possible accommodations, but it does not require the employee’s inclusion in every action taken during that process.

Gearhart v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. · filed 2020-11-04(o)(3)

“Once an employee requests an accommodation, the employer has a duty to engage in an interactive process.” ... The purpose of the interactive process is to “identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” ... However, the duty to engage in an interactive process does not require the employer to include the employee in every action it takes once the duty is activated. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3) (describing an “an informal, interactive process”). ... The point of holding the meetings is to ensure “communication and good-faith exploration of possible accommodations,” not to impose rigid restrictions on an employer’s good-faith efforts to determine whether a reasonable accommodation is available. ... DuPont did not violate its duty of good faith by exploring whether Gearhart’s proposed accommodation was reasonable.