29 C.F.R. § 1630.2

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

The regulation treats an impairment as substantially limiting when it prevents or significantly restricts a major life activity, considering its nature, severity, duration, and long-term impact.

Milteer v. Navarro County Texas · filed 2022-05-03(j)

“[T]o be substantially limited means to be unable to perform a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform, or to be significantly restricted in the ability to perform it.” EEOC v. Chevron Phillips Chem. Co., 570 F.3d 606, 614 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)). “In making that determination, the EEOC has advised that [the court] consider: (i) the nature and severity of the impairment[;] (ii) the duration or expected duration of the impairment; and (iii) the permanent or long term impact, or the expected permanent or long term impact of or resulting from the impairment.” Hale, 642 F.3d at 500 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Chevron Phillips Chem. Co., 570 F.3d at 614). In this case, Milteer’s complaint does not include any allegations that describe the nature or severity of his physical and mental impairments or the difficulties he experiences as a result of these impairments in performing major life activities. The conclusory allegations that Milteer suffered from PTSD and hearing loss and that his hearing loss makes it “difficult for him to hear,” Compl. ¶ 5.6, are insufficient, without more, to plausibly allege that he has a “disability,” as that term is used in the relevant statutes.

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

Section 1630.2(j)(2) directs courts to consider the impairment’s nature and severity, its duration or expected duration, and its permanent or long-term impact when deciding whether it substantially limits a major life activity.

(PC) Singh v. Devine · filed 2022-08-19(j)(2)

Courts consider three factors to determine whether a disability is substantially limiting: (1) the nature and severity of the physical impairment; (2) the duration or expected duration of the impairment; and (3) the permanent or long-term impact of the impairment. See Fraser v. Goodale, 342 F.3d 1032, 1038 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(2)).

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

Section 1630.2(j)(1)(ii) defines “substantially limits” by whether a person is unable to perform a major life activity or significantly restricted in the condition, manner, or duration of performing it compared with the average person; the court applied that standard and held that the plaintiff’s need for a slightly extended lunch bathroom break did not substantially limit his ability to work.

Salomon v. Massachusetts Housing Finance Agency · filed 2023-03-21(j)(1)(ii)

In making its determination, the court considered the EEOC’s definition of “substantially limits” as “[u]nable to perform a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform”; or “[s]ignificantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under which an individual can perform a particular major life activity as compared to the condition, manner or duration under which the average person in the general population can perform that same major life activity.” Id. at 188–89 (alterations in original) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii) (1991)). ... The allegations in the amended complaint suggest the impairment Salomon experiences is less severe than the plaintiff in Ramos-Echevarria. ... Based on the allegations in the amended complaint, the Court does not find that Salomon has alleged he has a disability as defined by the ADA.

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

The regulation defines when an impairment substantially limits a major life activity, directs consideration of the impairment’s severity, duration, and long-term impact, and identifies major life activities covered by the ADA.

RAY v. ELECNOR HAWKEYE, LLC · filed 2023-12-06(j)(1), (j)(2), (i)

Having failed to adequately address and demonstrate the nature and severity of her impairment, the expected duration of the impairment, or the potential long-term impact of the impairment, this Court finds that Plaintiff fails to raise a genuine dispute as to whether she had an “impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities” when Defendant terminated her. See 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1).

Law changed since The ADAAA (effective Jan. 1, 2009) and EEOC’s 2011 revision replaced the old significant or severe restriction test with a broad, nondemanding substantial-limitation standard. The ADAAA and 2011 EEOC revision allow a short-term or episodic impairment to qualify under the actual-disability or record-of prong when it substantially limits a major life activity; permanent or long-term effects are not required.

An impairment is substantially limiting only if it prevents the person from pursuing a major life activity comparably to most people in the general population; a single remote, temporary episode of anaphylaxis did not meet that standard.

Keenan v. Trinity Health Mid Atlantic Mercy Health System Nazareth Hospital · filed 2025-08-05(j)(1)(ii)

“An individual is substantially limited in performing a major life activity if that individual is unable to pursue that major life activity in a comparable manner ‘to most people in the general population.’” ... “A nonpermanent or temporary condition cannot be a substantial impairment under the ADA.” ... Plaintiff fails to allege that her prior instance of anaphylaxis is a permanent or ongoing condition that substantially limits any major life activity. Plaintiff alleges only a single episode of anaphylaxis relating to a flu vaccine she received in 1993. (Am. Compl. ¶ 24.) She has failed to allege how this singular episode is anything more than a temporary condition. Moreover, Plaintiff’s immunologist informed her that she was not allergic to the COVID-19 vaccine and receiving the vaccine would not cause anaphylaxis. (Id. ¶ 20.) In these circumstances, Plaintiff has not alleged facts to support the assertion that her prior instance of anaphylaxis qualifies as a disability under the ADA.

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

Section 1630.2(j) directs courts to assess whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity by considering its nature, severity, duration, and long-term impact, and generally excludes short-term or non-chronic impairments.

Rodriguez · filed 2025-12-09(j)

Courts consider the nature, severity, duration, and long-term impact of the impairment when determining if an individual is substantially limited. 29 CFR § 1630.2(j)(2). Short-term or non-chronic impairments, such as broken limbs or concussions, typically do not qualify. 29 CFR § 1630.2(j).

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

Section 1630.2(j)(1)(ii) treats an impairment as substantially limiting when it significantly restricts the condition, manner, or duration in which a person can perform a major life activity compared with the average person.

Buczek-Booth · filed 2026-04-13(j)(1)(ii)

To establish that a condition is substantially limiting, the plaintiff must demonstrate that he is “significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under which [he] can perform a particular major life activity, as compared to the average person.” Kirkeberg v. Canadian Pacific Ry., 619 F.3d 898, 903 (8th Cir. 2010) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii)) (internal quotations omitted). Furthermore, “[t]his standard requires [the plaintiff] to show more than a ‘mere difference’ between his performance and that of the average individual.” Id. (citing Albertson's, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. 555, 565 (1999)).

Law changed since The EEOC’s 2011 revision removed the former severity, duration, and long-term-impact factor checklist from § 1630.2(j)(2) after the ADA Amendments Act broadened coverage.

Section 1630.2(j)(2) directs courts to consider an impairment’s severity, duration, and long-term impact when deciding whether it substantially limits a major life activity.

Louis Lampe Julia Lampe v. Anderson News Corp. Charlie Anderson, Jr., CEO · filed 1996-02-09(j)(2)

In determining whether an individual is "substantially limited in a major life activity," the following factors should be considered: "(i) The nature and severity of the impairment; (ii) The duration or expected duration of the impairment; and (iii) The permanent or long term impact, or the expected permanent or long term impact of or resulting from the impairment." 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(2). ... Lampe's condition is not sufficiently severe or permanent to warrant being called a disability under the Act.

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

Section 1630.2(j)(2) directs courts assessing substantial limitation to consider an impairment’s severity, duration, and long-term impact.

Sarsycki v. United Parcel Service · filed 1994-08-31(j)(2)

In determining whether an individual is substantially limited in a major life activity, the following factors should be considered (i) the nature and severity of the impairment; (n) the duration or expected duration of the impairment; and (in) the permanent or long term impact, or the expected long term impact of or resulting from the impairment. Id. at § 1630.2(j)(2). ... The Court finds this testimony sufficient to establish that Sarsyeki has a disability as defined under the first prong of the statutory definition.

Law changed since The ADAAA and 2011 EEOC revision clarified that a short-term impairment can qualify as an actual disability; duration remains relevant to the individualized assessment.

A lifting restriction does not substantially limit a major life activity when the evidence fails to show that the restriction is significant or lasting.

Plumb v. Abbott Laboratories · filed 1999-01-22(j)(1)

Plaintiff has presented no evidence that she had an incurable back injury or that her lifting restriction was permanent. ... Under these circumstances, plaintiff cannot show that she suffers from a substantial impairment of a major life activity.

Law changed since The ADAAA and 2011 EEOC revision replaced the old significant or severe restriction test with a broad, nondemanding substantial-limitation standard.

Section 1630.2 identifies walking as a major life activity and treats a significant restriction in the condition, manner, or duration of walking as a substantial limitation.

Pearson v. City of Manhattan · filed 1999-02-01(i), (j)(1)(ii)

Therefore, the plaintiff should be considered disabled under the ADA if he is “significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration” of the major life activity of “walking.” ... Based on the limitations of the plaintiffs ability to perform the major life activity of “walking,” the court finds that, for the purposes of this motion for summary judgment, he meets the requirements of the ADA to be considered a disabled person.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(j)(1) requires an impairment to prevent a major life activity or significantly restrict its performance compared with the average person; difficulty standing for extended periods did not meet that standard here.

Heasley v. D.C. General Hospital · filed 2002-01-02(j)(1)(i)-(ii)

The ADA does not define the term “substantially limits,” but courts have followed the EEOC’s understanding that substantial limitations “require that an individual be ‘[ujnable to perform a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform’ or ‘[s]ignifieantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under which an individual can perform a particular major life activity’ as compared to the average person in the general population.” Siragy v. Georgetown Univ., 1999 WL 767831, slip op. at 3 (D.D.C.1999) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(l)(i)-(ii)). Given this standard, it must be concluded, based on the undisputed evidence, that no reasonable jury could find that plaintiffs major life activities were substantially limited in March 1999 when she requested an accommodation.

Law changed since The ADAAA (effective Jan. 1, 2009) and 2011 EEOC revision replaced the former significant-restriction threshold with a broad, nondemanding substantial-limitation standard.

Section 1630.2(j) defines a substantial limitation as an inability to perform a major life activity or a significant restriction in performing it compared with the average person.

Access Now, Inc. v. Town of Jasper, Tennessee · filed 2003-06-26(j)

The term “substantially limits” means either: (1) an individual is unable to perform a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform; or (2) an individual is significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under which the individual can perform a major life activity as compared to the condition, manner or duration under which the average person in the population can perform that same major life activity.

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

A person who can stand for an hour at a time is not substantially limited in standing under the regulation’s disability definition.

Thomas v. Potter · filed 2004-07-09(j)(1)(ii)

For the foregoing reasons, therefore, after reviewing Plaintiffs evidence documenting his limitations in the major life activity of standing, the Court finds, in accordance with the Court’s holding in Gallimore, that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that he is substantially limited in the major life activity of standing.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

An impairment substantially limits a major life activity when it prevents the activity or significantly restricts the conditions, manner, or duration of performing it compared with an average person.

Coons v. Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, (Internal Revenue Service) · filed 2004-09-01(j)

Even if travel were a major life activity, Coons would have to show that he is either unable to travel, or that the condition, manner, or duration under which he can travel is significantly restricted as compared to that of an average person. ... Because Coons presents no evidence or legal authority to show that his impairments substantially limit any major life activities, we hold that he is not a disabled person under the first ADA test.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

An impairment substantially limits a major life activity when it prevents the activity or significantly restricts how the person performs it compared with the average person.

Kothe v. Continental Teves, Inc. · filed 2006-11-20(j)(1)

There is nothing else in the record to substantiate Plaintiffs claim that he was “substantially limited” in his ability to stand and walk.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

An impairment substantially limits a major life activity when it prevents the activity or significantly restricts its performance compared with the average person; needing a break from sitting every two hours does not meet that standard.

Maclin, Mildred v. Ameritech · filed 2008-04-01(j)(1)

An employee is disabled if ... she “is unable to perform [a major life] activity or is ‘significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under which’ she can perform it, as compared to an average person in the general population.” Squibb, 497 F.3d at 781 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)) (alteration omitted). ... The district court therefore properly granted summary judgment for Ameritech on all of Ms. Maclin’s ADA claims because she has not established that she has an ADA-cognizable disability.

Law changed since The ADA Amendments Act (effective Jan. 1, 2009) requires most mitigating measures, including medication, to be disregarded when assessing disability under the amended law.

An impairment substantially limits a major life activity when it significantly restricts how a person performs that activity compared with the average person, taking into account measures used to manage the impairment.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Agro Distribution, LLC · filed 2009-01-15(j)(1)(ii)

Because Velez regulates his body temperature without significant side effects and in essentially the same manner as the average person, no genuine issue exists as to whether his impairment “substantially limits” a major life activity.

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

Under the standard applied here, an impairment substantially limits a major life activity when it prevents the activity or significantly restricts how the person performs it compared with the general population.

Hutson v. COVIDIEN, INC. · filed 2009-08-26(j)

For the reasons discussed above, the record does not support Hutson’s contention that he has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of his major life activities.

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

Section 1630.2(j) defines when an impairment substantially limits a major life activity and identifies severity, duration, and long term impact as factors to consider.

Brown v. Board of Trustees Sealy Independent School District · filed 2012-05-09(j)

The following factors are to be considered in determining whether an individual is substantially limited in performing a major life activity: (1) the nature and severity of the impairment; (2) the duration or expected duration of the impairment; and (3) the permanent or long term impact of the impairment. ... This statement does not provide the Court with any facts from which, to judge the severity of Brown’s ADHD, the date of her diagnosis, the prognostication for management of her ADHD, or the impact of her ADHD on her teaching abilities or other “major life activities.”

Law changed since The ADAAA and 2011 EEOC revision replaced the old significant or severe restriction test with a broad, nondemanding substantial-limitation standard.

Section 1630.2(j)(1) defines a substantial limitation by comparing a person's ability to perform a major life activity with that of the average person.

Halperin v. Abacus Technology Corporation · filed 1997-09-18(j)(1)

Accordingly, a finding that Halperin is disabled must be made by determining whether his back injury substantially limits his ability to work. ... According to the EEOC, "substantially limits” means: ... (ii) Significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under which an individual can perform a particular major, life activity as compared to the condition, manner, or duration under which the average person in the general population can perform that same major life activity.

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

Section 1630.2(h) defines an impairment as a physiological or psychological disorder, while § 1630.2(j) requires a significant restriction of a major life activity, and § 1630.2(j)(3)(i) measures limitation in working by the ability to perform a class or broad range of jobs.

Beaulieu v. Northrop Grumman Corp. · filed 2000-09-28(h), (j)(1)(i), (j)(3)(i)

The EEOC regulations define an impairment as “any physiological disorder, or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one of the body’s systems... or any mental or psychological disorder...” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h). ... To be “substantially limited” a disability must “significantly restrict the duration, manner or condition under which an individual can perform a major life activity as compared to an average person in the general population.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(i), (ii). ... With respect to working, “substantially limited” means that one is “significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2 defines disability to include an impairment substantially limiting a major life activity, a record of such impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment; for working, substantial limitation means significant restriction in a class or broad range of jobs.

Van Houten v. Sec Dept Veterans · filed 2004-08-06(g), (i), (j)

Disability is defined as: (1) A physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities . . . (2) A record of such impairment; or (3) being regarded as having such an impairment. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(g)(1998). ... There is no disagreement that carpal tunnel syndrome is an “impairment,” and that the relevant “major life activity” is that of working, see 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(I). With respect to working, “[t]he term substantially limits means significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities.” Id. at § 1630.2(j). Our inquiry is thus whether Van Houten set forth facts from which a jury could reasonably conclude that the VA regarded his carpel tunnel syndrome as an impairment that “significantly restricted [his] ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs.” 19 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j). We believe he did not.

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

Section 1630.2(h) limits physical and mental impairments to specified physiological or psychological conditions; § 1630.2(i) identifies major life activities; and § 1630.2(j)(2) directs consideration of the impairment’s nature, severity, duration, and long-term impact in deciding whether it substantially limits a major life activity.

Evans v. Texas Department of Transportation · filed 2007-10-02(h)(1)-(2), (i), (j)(2)

The ADA further restricts the meaning of physical and mental impairment to: ... (2) Any mental or psychological disorder, such as mental retardation, organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and specific learning disabilities. ... “ ‘Major life activities means functions such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.’” ... The factors to be considered in determining whether an impairment substantially limits a major activity include: ... (3) its permanent or expected permanent or long-term impact.

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

Subsection (j)(1) defines a substantial limitation by inability or significant restriction compared with the average person, while subsection (j)(2) directs consideration of the impairment’s nature and severity, duration, and permanent or long-term impact.

Furnish v. Svi Systems, Incorporated · filed 2001-10-22(j)(1), (j)(2)

The ADA regulations state that a person is “substantially limited” by an impairment if that person is either “ ‘[ujnable to perform a major life activity’ or is ‘significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration’ under which the individual can perform the major life activity as compared to the average person in the general population.” ... Thus, the analysis for determining whether a person’s impairment substantially limits a major life activity has three facets: 1) the nature and severity of the impairment; 2) the duration of the impairment; and 3) the permanent or long-term impact resulting from the impairment.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(j)(1) defines substantial limitation by inability or significant restriction in a major life activity, and § 1630.2(j)(2) requires consideration of the impairment’s nature, severity, duration, and long-term impact.

Salle v. Puerto Rico Telephone Co. · filed 1998-03-12(j)(1), (j)(2)

Therefore, to show that a factual dispute exists as to whether Co-plaintiffs impairment is “substantially limiting,” the court must consider the “nature, severity and duration of the impairment” and the “permanence or long term impact resulting from the impairment.” Defendant argues that, given Co-plaintiffs own admission as to her quick improvement, her impairment was only temporary&emdash;in addition to the fact that it did not limit her ability to perform a broad range of jobs&emdash;and, hence, it is not sufficient under the statute and regulations to be “substantially limiting.” The court agrees.

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

Whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity is determined by considering its nature and severity, duration or expected duration, and permanent or long-term impact.

Frazier v. Smith · filed 1998-06-26(j)

Three factors are considered to determine whether substantial limitations exist on these activities: (1) the nature and severity of the impairment, (2) the duration or expected duration of the impairment, and (3) the permanent or long term impact of the impairment. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j) (1997).

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

Section 1630.2 treats an impairment as substantially limiting when it significantly restricts performance of a major life activity compared with the average person, considers the impairment’s nature, severity, duration, and long-term impact, and includes hearing among major life activities.

Spencer v. National City Bank · filed 2010-08-05(j)(l)(ii), (j)(2), (1)

A limitation is substantial if a person is “[significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under which [she] can perform a particular major life activity as compared to the condition, manner, or duration under which the average person in the general population can perform that same major life activity.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(l)(ii). Whether an individual meets the definition of disability requires an individualized inquiry. ... Courts consider the nature and severity of the impairment, the impairment’s duration, and the permanency or long-term impact resulting from the impairment. ... 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(2).

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

Section 1630.2(j)(2) directs courts to consider an impairment’s nature and severity, duration, and permanent or long-term impact when deciding whether a limitation is substantial.

Higley v. Rick's Floor Covering, Inc. · filed 2010-10-21(j)(2)

In determining whether a limitation is substantial, we consider the nature and severity of the impairment, its duration, and the permanent or long term impact of the impairment. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(2). We address each of these in turn.

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

Section 1630.2(j)(1) defines a substantial limitation as an inability or significant restriction in performing a major life activity compared with the average person.

Brown v. Lester E. Cox Medical Centers, D/B/A Cox Medical Centers South · filed 2002-05-22(j)(1)

A “substantial limit” means an inability or a significant restriction on the ability to perform a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform.

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

Section 1630.2(j)(1)'s substantial-limitation standard requires more than a minor interference: for any major life activity other than working, the impairment must prevent or severely restrict the individual's ability to perform it compared with how unimpaired people normally do so in daily life.

Fenney v. Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Company, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Amicus on Beh · filed 2003-05-29(j)(1)

According to the EEOC, a person is “substantially limited” if, compared to the average person in the general population, she cannot perform or is “[sjignifi-cantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under which” she “can perform a particular major life activity....” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(l) (2002); ... We decline to do so. ... We therefore conclude that Fenney must demonstrate that his impairment “prevents or severely restricts” his ability to care for himself compared with how unimpaired individuals normally care for themselves in daily life.

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

Section 1630.2(j)(1) defines “substantially limits” by comparing an individual's ability to perform a major life activity with that of the average person, and § 1630.2(j)(2) identifies the impairment's nature and severity, duration, and permanent or long-term impact as relevant factors.

Wright v. Comp USA, Inc. · filed 2003-12-22(j)(1) (j)(2)

EEOC regulations define "substantially limits" as "(i) [u]nable to perform a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform; or (ii) [s]ignificantly restricted as to the condition, manner, or duration under which an individual can perform a major life activity as compared to the condition, manner, or duration under which the average person in the general population can perform that same major life activity." 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1). Factors to be considered in determining whether an individual is substantially limited in a major life activity are "(i) [t]he nature and severity of the impairment, (ii) [t]he duration or expected duration of the impairment, and (iii) [t]he permanent or long term impact . . . of or resulting from the impairment." 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(2).

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

Section 1630.2(j) defines “substantially limited” as being unable to perform a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform, or being significantly restricted in the ability to perform it.

Worrall v. Love Style Inc · filed 2022-08-15(j)

To “be substantially limited means to be unable to perform a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform, or to be significantly restricted in the ability to perform it.” EEOC v. Chevron Phillips Chem. Co., 570 F.3d 606, 614 (5th Cir. 2009) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)).

Law changed since The ADAAA and 2011 EEOC revision removed the perceived-substantial-limitation requirement for regarded-as disability and former § 1630.2(j)(2)’s mandatory severity, duration, and long-term-impact checklist.

The severity, expected duration, and lasting impact of a perceived impairment determine whether it is substantially limiting.

Lillibridge v. Wooden Soldier · filed 1997-02-04(j)(2)

None of the aforementioned information on plaintiff's condition would have led Wooden Soldier to conclude that her wrist condition was a "substantial limitation." Neither she nor her doctor indicated her condition was severe in nature, expected to persist for a long duration, or expected to have a long-term impact. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(2).

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

Section 1630.2(j)(2) directs courts assessing a substantial limitation to consider an impairment’s severity, duration, and long-term impact.

Hernandez v. City of Hartford · filed 1997-03-14(j)(2)

In determining if an individual is substantially limited, the court considers “(i) [t]he nature and severity of the impairment; (ii)[t]he duration or expected duration of the impairment; and (iii)[t]he permanent or long term impact, or the expected permanent or long term impact of or resulting from the impairment.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(2).

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

Breathing problems during stress or strenuous activity do not establish a substantial limitation without evidence that breathing is significantly restricted otherwise.

Sebest v. Campbell City School District Board of Education · filed 2004-04-08(j)(1)

The record lacks any evidence indicating that, when Sebest is not under stress or is not performing a strenuous activity, his breathing is significantly restricted. Therefore, Sebest does not meet the first definition of disability in the ADA.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A person who can stand for thirty to forty minutes at a time is not substantially limited in standing under § 1630.2(j)(1).

Williams v. Excel Foundry & MacHine Inc. · filed 2007-06-01(j)(1)

A person is substantially limited within the meaning of the ADA if he is: (1) unable to perform a major life activity that the average person can; or (2) significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under which he can perform a major life activity as compared to the average person. ... Because we also believe that thirty to forty minutes is not a “very brief’ period, we find that Williams’s inability to stand for longer periods does not constitute a substantial limitation on the major life activity of standing.

Law changed since The ADAAA (effective Jan. 1, 2009) and EEOC’s 2011 revision replaced the old significant or severe restriction test with a broad, nondemanding substantial-limitation standard. The ADAAA and 2011 EEOC revision removed the requirement that an employer perceive a substantial limitation of a major life activity; an ADA-prohibited action because of an actual or perceived impairment generally suffices, subject to the transitory-and-minor exception.

Section 1630.2(j)(1) defines a substantial limitation by comparing a person’s ability to perform a major life activity with that of the average person.

Decker v. Alliant Technologies, LLC · filed 2012-05-18(j)(1)

EEOC regulations define “substantially limited” as an inability “to perform a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform,” or a significant restriction “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.” ... As a result of the conflicting accounts of Messrs. Decker and Flitcroft, there is a triable issue of fact as to whether Mr. Flitcroft regarded Mr. Decker’s ADHD as substantially limiting him major life activities.

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

Section 1630.2(j)(1)(ii) defines a substantial limitation as a significant restriction on the condition, manner, or duration under which a person performs a major life activity, measured against the average person.

Kirkeberg v. Canadian Pacific Railway · filed 2010-08-27(j)(1)(ii)

To establish that his conditions are substantially limiting, Kirkeberg must demonstrate that he is “[s]ignificantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under which [he] can perform a particular major life activity,” as compared to the average person. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii).

Law changed since The 2011 EEOC revision removed former § 1630.2(j)(3)’s required geographic-area and local job-market factors; the class or broad range of jobs inquiry for working remains.

The regulation defines a “class of jobs” by the job from which the individual is disqualified and geographically available jobs requiring similar training, knowledge, skills, or abilities.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Heartway Corp. · filed 2006-10-26(j)(3)(ii)(B)

Finally, we conclude that the jobs from which Edwards was regarded as restricted constituted a “class of jobs.” As noted earlier, the EEOC regulations define a “class of jobs” as the job from which one is disqualified and “jobs utilizing similar training, knowledge, skills or abilities, within that geographical area.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(ii)(B); see also Siemon, 117 F.3d at 1176. ... The EEOC’s expert witness, Elvira Sisolak, testified that jobs in the “health care support” and “food preparation and food serving” census job groups — in the geographical area — required training, knowledge, and skills similar to those utilized in Edwards’s job at York Manor. Many — if not most — of these jobs (e.g., operating room assistant, first aid nurse, cook, waitress) would require kitchen work and/or present the risk of cuts and contamination. It is reasonable to conclude, based on this expert evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from Townsend’s comments, that Townsend viewed Edwards as significantly restricted in her ability to perform a class of such jobs. Therefore, we hold that there was a “legally sufficient evidentiary basis” for a jury to conclude that Edwards had a disability as defined by the ADA.

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

Section 1630.2(j)(1) directs courts to consider an impairment's nature, severity, duration, and long-term impact, while § 1630.2(j)(3) treats a significant restriction on a class or broad range of jobs as substantially limiting, but not inability to perform one particular job.

Fagan v. United International Insurance · filed 2001-01-22(j)(1) (j)(3)

In determining whether an impairment is “substantially limiting”, the court should “consider (1) the ‘nature and severity of the impairment;’ (2) the ‘duration or expected duration of the impairment;’ and (3) the ‘permanent or long term impact, or the expected permanent or long term impact of or resulting from the impairment.’ ” ... “The term ‘substantially limits’ means significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills, and abilities. The inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3).

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

The regulation defines “substantially limits” as an inability or significant restriction compared with the average person and identifies major life activities including caring for oneself, manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.

Parry v. Mohawk Motors of Michigan, Inc. · filed 2000-12-29(j)(1) (i)

The term "'substantially limits' means an inability to perform or a significant restriction on the ability to perform as compared to the average person in the general population." Cassidy v. Detroit Edison Co., 138 F.3d 629, 633 (6th Cir. 1998) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)). "'Major life activities' include 'functions such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working." Id. (quoting 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(i)).

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

Section 1630.2 defines “substantially limits” as a significant restriction on the condition, manner, or duration in which the average person performs the same major life activity, and directs courts to consider the impairment’s nature, severity, duration, and long-term impact.

Barnes v. Zaccari · filed 2010-09-03(j)(1), (j)(2)

The EEOC defines the “substantially limits” phrase to mean “significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under which the average person in the general population can perform the same major life activity.”

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

Section 1630.2(j)(1) defines when an impairment substantially limits a major life activity, and subsection (j)(2) directs courts to consider the impairment’s nature and severity, duration, and permanent or long-term impact.

Wilson v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co. · filed 2002-03-25(j)(1), (j)(2)

The ultimate issue on this motion is relatively straightforward: whether there is sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that Wilson is “ ‘significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under which [he] can [hear] as compared to the condition, manner or duration under which the average person in the general population can [hear.]’ ” Item 72, p. 15 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(J)(1)). In answering this question, it is appropriate for the court to assess: (1) the nature and severity of the impairment, (2) its duration or expected duration, and (3) its permanent or expected permanent or long-term impact. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(2) (2000).

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

Section 1630.2(j)(1)(i) describes “substantially limits” as being unable to perform a major life activity or being significantly restricted in performing it.

Navedo v. Nalco Chemical, Inc. · filed 2012-01-30(j)(1)(i)

Further, EEOC regulations codifying this provision of the ADA have interpreted the phrase “substantially limits” as “[ujnable to perform” or “[sjignificantly restricted.”

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

Section 1630.2(j)(3) requires a substantial limitation in working to be shown by a significant restriction in performing a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs, not merely one particular job; the court applied those definitions and found evidence of restrictions across law-enforcement jobs sufficient.

Hall v. Claussen · filed 2001-03-06(j)(3)(i), (j)(3)(ii)(B), (j)(3)(ii)(C), (j)(3)(ii)

The first of these challenges—to Mr. Hall’s evidence that he suffered an impairment of a major life activity—is based upon the principle that “‘[t]he inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working.’” Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 130 F.3d 893, 904 (10th Cir.1997) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i)). Instead, “in order [t]o demonstrate that an impairment ‘substantially limits’ the major life activity of working, an individual must show significant[ ] restrict[ion] in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities.” Bolton v. Scrivner, Inc., 36 F.3d 939, 942-43 (10th Cir.1994) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i)). ... EEOC regulations provide definitions of the relevant terms. They state that a “class of jobs” includes “[t]he job from which the individual has been disqualified because of an impairment, and the number and types of jobs utilizing similar training, knowledge, skills or abilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(ii)(B). A broad range of jobs includes “[t]he job from which the individual has been disqualified because of an impairment, and the number and types of other jobs not utilizing similar training, knowledge, skills or abilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(ii)(C); see also Bolton, 36 F.3d at 942 (discussing definitions). ... Viewing the record in the light most favorable to Mr. Hall, we conclude that the evidence is sufficient to support his contention that his urological condition substantially impaired the major life activity of working, as that term is defined under the ADA. Based on Sheriff Claussen’s own arguments, a jury could have reasonably concluded that there was a broad range of jobs in law enforcement that could not be performed adequately if one required frequent and immediate access to a bathroom, as Mr. Hall did. Thus, the district court properly denied Sheriff Claussen’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on this basis.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For working, “substantially limits” means being significantly restricted in the ability to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes, not merely being unable to perform one particular job.

Williams v. Stark County Board of County Commissioners · filed 2001-03-23(j)(1)(i)

The EEOC defines “substantially limits” to mean “significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes,” not just an “inability to perform a single, particular job.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(3)(i). With respect to Plaintiffs claim to be substantially limited in her major life activity of work, then, Williams must show that her migraines render her unable to work in a broad class of jobs. ... At most, Williams has shown that her condition made it difficult for her to perform her particular job. Because she has failed to allege or provide evidence that she was disqualified by her claimed disability from a broad class of jobs, Plaintiff has not shown that she is substantially limited in the major life activity of working.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(j)(3)(i) treats an individual as substantially limited in working when significantly restricted from a class or broad range of jobs compared with a person of comparable training, skills, and abilities; inability to perform one particular job alone is insufficient.

Vanderpool v. SYSCO Food Services of PortLand, Inc. · filed 2001-04-16(j)(3)(i)

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulations provide: ... [A]n individual is “substantially limited” from working if she is “significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities. The inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i). ... A factfinder could infer from Lipnieki’s Amended Affidavit that Plaintiff is significantly restricted in his ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes compared to the average person having comparable training, skills, and abilities.

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

Section 1630.2(j)(2)(i) directs courts to consider an impairment’s nature and severity, duration, and long-term impact in deciding substantial limitation, while subsection (j)(3)(i) requires a significant restriction from a class or broad range of jobs, not merely one particular job, for a limitation in working.

Cooper v. Olin Corp. · filed 2001-05-01(j)(2)(i), (j)(3)(i)

According to the regulations that guide the interpretation of the ADA, an impairment is “substantially limiting” if it renders an individual unable to perform a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform, or if it significantly restricts the condition, manner, or duration under which an individual can perform such an activity compared to the general population. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(i)-(ii). ... Several factors are considered in determining whether a person is substantially limited in a major life activity: (1) the nature and severity of the impairment; (2) its duration or anticipated duration; and (3) its long-term impact. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(2)(i)-(iii). ... To be regarded as substantially limited in the life activity of working, a plaintiff must be regarded as “significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i); Murphy v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 527 U.S. 516, 523 (1999) (applying section 1630.2(j)(3) factors to “regarded as” claim). Inability to perform one particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation on working. Id.

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

The regulation identifies factors for determining whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity and provides that inability to perform one particular job is insufficient; the impairment must significantly restrict the ability to perform a class or broad range of jobs.

Lucas v. Miami County, Kansas · filed 2001-05-10(j)(2), (j)(3)(i)

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulations list three factors that should be considered in determining whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity: (1) “[t]he nature and severity of the impairment;” (2) “[t]he duration or expected duration of the impairment;” and (3) “[t]he permanent or long term impact, or the expected permanent or long term impact of or resulting from the impairment.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(2). ... Significantly, “[t]he inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i); ... To demonstrate that an impairment “substantially limits” the major life activity of working, an individual must show that he is “significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i). ... A plaintiff alleging he is regarded as substantially limited in the major life activity of working must present some evidence of the number and types of jobs within the geographical area to which he has reasonable access. ... Lucas did not produce evidence showing the County regards him as having a significant restriction in his “ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes.” § 1630.2(j)(3)(i).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Usala v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. · filed 2001-03-22(j)(3)(i)

The regulations provide that the ability to work is substantially limited if the plaintiff “is significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills, and abilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i). Accordingly, “the inability to perform in a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation to the major life activity of working.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For the major life activity of working, substantial limitation requires a significant restriction on performing a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs, and inability to perform only one job is insufficient.

Maziarka v. Mills Fleet Farm, Inc. · filed 2001-04-03(j)(3)(i)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The regulation treats working as substantially limited when an individual is significantly restricted from a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs compared with a similarly trained average person, assessed using geographic and comparable-job evidence; it also calls for an informal interactive process to identify disability-related limitations and potential accommodations.

Swierkowski v. Consolidated Rail Corp. · filed 2001-04-03(j)(3)(i), (j)(3)(ii), (o)(3)

That is a correct statement of the law for it is only significant restriction in the ability to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes, as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities, that is actionable under the Rehabilitation Act. However, the Court concludes that plaintiff has presented evidence to support his contention that he is unable to perform a broad range of jobs. ... In this case, plaintiff presented sufficient demographic evidence to survive summary judgment — evidence that shows there were no available sedentary trainman positions for which he had sufficient seniority in the Buffalo area at Conrail. Ex. P-1, p. 123. ... The Court holds that plaintiff has met his burden of presenting evidence of a disability that substantially limited the major life activity of working because he was “significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills, and abilities.” ... “To determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation it may be necessary for the covered entity to initiate an informal, interactive process with the qualified individual with a disability in need of the accommodation. This process should identify the precise limitations resulting from the disability and potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3)(2000).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(j)(3)(i) treats a person as substantially limited in working only when the impairment significantly restricts performance of a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes, not merely one particular job.

Hooven-Lewis v. Louis Caldera, Secretary of the Army · filed 2001-05-01(j)(3)(i)

The regulations define “substantially limited” as being significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a “class of jobs” or a “broad range of jobs in various classes.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i). Hooven-Lewis does not argue that she is not able to perform a range of jobs in other fields. Yet, Hooven Lewis has not demonstrated that she is disqualified from performing a class of jobs, because she may still perform jobs utilizing her training, knowledge, skills, and abilities as a biologist.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2 treats an impairment as substantially limiting working only when it significantly restricts the ability to perform a class or broad range of jobs, evaluated using factors such as the jobs, geographic area, and the individual's training and experience.

EEOC v. Woodbridge Corp. · filed 2001-08-24(j)(1)(i), (j)(3)(ii)

An impairment is “substantially limiting” if it renders an individual unable to perform a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform, or if it significantly restricts the condition, manner, or duration under which an individual can perform a particular major life activity as compared to an average person in the general population. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(i)-(ii). ... A person is substantially limited in working if he is “significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills, and abilities.” ... The factors to be considered include: the number and type of jobs from which the impaired individual is disqualified; the geographical area to which the individual has reasonable access; and the individual’s job training, experience, and expectations. Fjellestad, 188 F.3d at 949 (8th Cir. 1999) citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(ii). ... The evidence in this case, when construed in the manner most favorable to the EEOC, reflects that the test administered was specifically designed for the activities required on a specific foam line job in a specific plant. An employer that regards an individual as having an impairment that disqualifies him or her from a narrow range of jobs does not regard him or her as substantially limited in the major life activity of working. See Wooten v. Farmland Foods, 58 F.3d 382, 386 (8th Cir. 1995).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(j)(3)(i) does not treat inability to perform a single, particular job as a substantial limitation on working; the impairment must significantly restrict work in a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs.

Union Carbide Corporation v. Mayfield, Delfa · filed 2001-08-31(j)(3)(i)

The inability to perform frequent stair climbing or climbing of ladders and scaffolds does not significantly restrict Mayfield in his ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills, and abilities. See Sutton , 119 S.Ct. at 2142. Mayfield's flat-footedness does not severely restrict or foreclose his ability to work in general.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(i) defines a substantial limitation by comparing a person's ability to perform a major life activity with that of the average person, while § 1630.2(h)(3)(I) requires a significant restriction from a class or broad range of jobs to establish limitation in working.

Watkins v. Roadway Express Inc · filed 2001-09-04(i) and (h)(3)(I)

A person is “substantially limited” if he is 1) Unable to perform a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform; or 2) Significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under which an individual can perform a particular major life activity as compared to the condition, manner, or duration under which the average person in the general population can perform the same major life activity. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i). ... As a matter of law, Watkins is not substantially limited in the performance of any major life activity. First, Watkins is not substantially limited in the major life activity of working because he is not significantly restricted in his ability to perform “either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes . . .” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(3)(I); see also Sutton v. United Airlines, 527 U.S. 471, 491 (1999).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(j)(3) defines a substantial limitation in working as a significant restriction on the ability to perform a class or broad range of jobs and identifies factors for determining that limitation.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Canchola · filed 2001-11-29(j)(3)

With regard to the major life activity of working, the ADA regulations explain that the term "substantially limits" means: [S]ignificantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills, and abilities. The ability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working. 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(j)(3) (1996); see Primeaux , 961 S.W.2d at 405. Factors to consider in determining whether an individual is substantially limited in working include, but are not limited to, the geographical area to which the person has reasonable access; the job from which the individual has been disqualified because of an impairment, and the number and types of jobs utilizing similar training, knowledge, skills or abilities, within that geographical area, from which the individual is also disqualified because of the impairment; and the number and types of other jobs not utilizing similar training, knowledge, skills, or abilities, within that geographical area from which the individual is also disqualified because of the impairment. 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(j)(3).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Grant v. May Department Stores Co. · filed 2001-12-06(j)(3)(i)

The “substantial limits” language requires an individual that has a disability to be “significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities. The inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity ...”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(j)(3)(i) considers a person substantially limited in working when the person is significantly restricted from performing either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes compared with a similarly trained and skilled average person.

Chille v. United Airlines · filed 2001-09-17(j)(3)(i)

A substantial impairment to the major life activity of working requires more than merely encountering problems with one particular job. A person will be considered to be “substantially limited” in the major life activity of working if she is “significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under subsection (j)(3), an impairment substantially limits the major life activity of working when it significantly restricts the ability to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs; inability to perform one particular job is insufficient.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Canchola · filed 2002-01-31(j)(3)

[Significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills, and abilities. The ability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial imitation in the major life activity of working.

Law changed since The 2011 EEOC revision removed former § 1630.2(j)(3)’s required geographic-area and local job-market factors; the class or broad range of jobs inquiry for working remains.

The regulation identifies the geographic area where a person may obtain employment and the number and types of jobs there using similar training, knowledge, and skills as factors in deciding whether working is substantially limited.

Cannon v. Levi Strauss & Co. · filed 2002-02-06(j)(3)(ii)(A) and (B)

The EEOC regulations on this subject are in accord with that definition, and they suggest that several factors are to be considered when determining if an individual is substantially limited in the activity of working: the geographical area in which the person may obtain employment and the number and type of jobs in that area utilizing similar training, knowledge, and skills. 29 CFR § 1630.2(j)(3)(ii)(A) and (B), cited in Sutton, 527 U.S. at 492.

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

For the major life activity of working, substantial limitation means significant restriction in the ability to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes compared with a person of comparable training, skills, and abilities.

Deason v. Duke Engy Trunkline · filed 2002-03-21(j)(3)

Deason’s contention that she is substantially limited in the major life activity of working is similarly unpersuasive under both the EEOC regulations and our Circuit’s jurisprudence because, despite her shoulder problem, she can still perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3) (2001)(“With respect to the major life activity of working, the term substantially limits means significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities”); see also Dutcher v. Ingalls Shipbuilding, 53 F.3d 723, 727 (5th Cir. 1995)(“inability to perform one aspect of a job while retaining the ability to perform the work in general does not amount to substantial limitation of the activity of working.”). Ray v. Glidden Co., 85 F.3d 227, 229 (5th Cir. 1996) (plaintiff’s inability to perform continuous heavy lifting did not constitute a substantial limitation on a major life activity); Pryor v. Trane Company, 138 F.3d 1024, 1027 (5th Cir. 1998) (upholding jury determination that individual who could not perform continuous lifting from shoulder to overhead and ability to push and pull was below average was not substantially limited in a major life activity).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2 treats major life activities as functions such as working and defines substantial limitation by inability or significant restriction; for working, inability to perform one particular job function is insufficient.

Sacay v. RESEARCH FOUNDATION OF CITY UNIVER. OF NY · filed 2002-03-27(i), (j)(1), and (j)(3)

"Major life activities" are defined under the regulations as "functions such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working." 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i). "Substantially limits" is defined as: (i) unable to perform a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform; or (ii) significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under which an individual can perform a particular major life activity as compared to the condition, manner, or duration under which the average person in the general population can perform that same major life activity. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1). ... Where work is the identified major life activity, the EEOC regulations define "substantially limited" as a: [s]ignificant restriction in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities. The inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working. Id. § 1630.2(j)(3); Giordano, 274 F.3d at 747.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

To show a substantial limitation in working, an individual must be significantly restricted from working either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes.

Thompson v. KN Energy, Inc. · filed 2001-12-13(j)(3)(i)

Instead, plaintiff must demonstrate she is significantly restricted from working either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes. Plaintiff has failed to make the necessary showing.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(j)(3) requires a claimant alleging a limitation in working to show significant restriction from a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs, with the job-market factors in § 1630.2(j)(3)(ii) informing that inquiry.

Garcia v. Frito-Lay Snacks Caribbean, Inc. · filed 2001-12-28(j)(3) and (j)(3)(ii)

In the case at bar, Plaintiff has presented a claim of disability to work, but she has failed to provide any proof whatsoever regarding her inability to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs. Based on her educational and professional background, and her particular health conditions, Garcia’s disability to work is not self evident, thus Plaintiff was required to present credible evidence on this issue.

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

Section 1630.2 treats a person as substantially limited in working when restricted from a class of jobs, evaluates a record of disability by the impairment’s severity, duration, and long-term impact, and requires a direct-threat determination to rest on an individualized assessment using current medical knowledge or the best available objective evidence.

McKenzie v. Dovala · filed 2001-03-13(j)(3)(i), (k), (j)(2), (r)

Second, none of the positions in which McKenzie was employed during the cited period is part of the “class” of law enforcement jobs, her prior and preferred field. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i). ... A record of disability is a history of impairment that substantially limited a major life activity of a plaintiff. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(k); see also Sorensen v. Univ. of Utah Hosp., 194 F.3d 1084, 1086–87 (10th Cir. 1999). ... In determining whether an impairment is substantially limiting such that it may support a record of disability under the ADA, the following factors are considered: “(i) [t]he nature and severity of the impairment; (ii) [t]he duration or expected duration of the impairment; and (iii) [t]he permanent or long term impact” of the impairment. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(2). ... The determination that an individual is unqualified because she poses a direct threat must be “based on an individualized assessment of the individual’s present ability to safely perform the essential functions of the job,” which in turn must be based on “a reasonable medical judgment that relies on the most current medical knowledge and/or on the best available objective evidence.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(r); see also Den Hartog, 129 F.3d at 1089.