29 C.F.R. § 1630.2
Definitions under the Americans with Disabilities Act regulations: the cases that interpreted this section
5,136 citing cases reviewed of 11,449 in the citation index: 4,244 interpreted the section (annotated below), 892 cited it only in passing. Cases filed after 2026-06-26 may not have been reviewed yet.
Have a situation under 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2?
These notes show how courts have ruled. Ask about your specific facts and see which of these rulings apply, with citations you can check.
Mental impairment
A mental impairment qualifies as a disability only when it substantially limits a major life activity compared with most people in the general population.
DiNome v. Cordis Corporation · filed 2024-08-21(j)(1)(ii)
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has expanded upon the ADA's definition of a disability to include “any mental or psychological disorder,” or “emotional or mental illness,” that substantially limits the ability of an individual to perform a major activity as compared to most people in the general population. Id. at *25; (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii)). ... Here, DiNome’s allegations fail to include facts from which the Court can infer the severity of her condition or the extent to which her disability limited her ability to study for and take the exam as compared to most people.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Section 1630.2(j)(3)(iii) identifies certain impairments, including major depressive disorder, as impairments that substantially limit brain function, but a diagnosis of depressed mood or adjustment disorder alone does not establish that listed disorder or substantial limitation.
Bordeaux v. Halstead Property Development Marketing LLC · filed 2022-02-16(j)(3)(iii)
But Plaintiff has not provided any evidence that any diagnoses she has received equate to or fall under the criteria for “major depressive disorder” or any of the other disorders listed in the regulation. ... Accordingly, that an individual is “depressed” or was assessed as having a depressed mood, without more, does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the individual suffers from major depressive disorder. ... Here, the record reflects that Plaintiff was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. ... But Plaintiff has offered no evidence to show that this adjustment disorder falls under the umbrella of major depressive disorder. Thus, Plaintiff cannot rely on 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(iii) alone to demonstrate that Plaintiff’s brain function was substantially limited. And without additional evidence that her impairment has substantially limited a major life activity, Plaintiff cannot show that she had an actual disability.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Section 1630.2(h)(2) provides that a mental or psychological disorder, including emotional or mental illness, qualifies as a physical or mental impairment.
Alvarado v. Potter · filed 2011-05-04(h)(2)
A mental or psychological disorder, including emotional or mental illness, qualifies as a physical or mental impairment. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(2).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Section 1630.2 requires an individualized disability inquiry: an impairment is not automatically a disability, and the court must assess the impairment, affected major life activities, and substantial limitation, while mental impairments include psychological disorders.
Wey v. City of St. Petersburg · filed 2020-12-08(j)(1)(ii), (h)(2)
The ADA defines “disability” as “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1). Nevertheless, “not every impairment will constitute a disability within the meaning of [the ADA].” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii). In determining whether Plaintiff is disabled under the ADA, the Court must: (1) consider whether the alleged disability was a physical or mental impairment; (2) identify the activities impaired and determine whether they are “major life activities;” and (3) determine whether the impairment substantially limited these activities.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Section 1630.2(j)(3)(iii) provides that bipolar disorder is readily understood to impair the major life activity of brain function.
Hettiarachchi v. County of Suffolk · filed 2020-09-30(j)(3)(iii)
These regulations state that it should be “easily concluded” that “bipolar disorder” is an impairment that limits the major life activity of “brain function.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(iii).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Section 1630.2 treats an impairment without regard to mitigating measures such as medicine and includes mental or psychological disorders, including emotional or mental illness, as mental impairments that may qualify as protected disabilities.
Krocka v. Riegler · filed 1997-03-21(h)(2)
The condition at issue is to be considered “without regard to mitigating measures such as medicine.” Interpretive Appendix § 1630.2(h). ... Any mental or psychological disorder, including emotional or mental illness, is' considered a “mental impairment” under the ADA. 29 CFR § 1630.2(h)(2). Depression is among the mental impairments that may rise to the level of a protected disability.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Subsection (h) defines mental impairment as a mental or psychological disorder, and the court held that inability to tolerate stressful situations does not qualify as such an impairment.
Mundo v. Sanus Health Plan of Greater New York · filed 1997-06-24(h)
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulations implementing the ADA define “mental impairment” as “[a]ny mental or psychological disorder, such as mental retardation, organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and specific learning disabilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h). ... First, an inability to tolerate stressful situations is not an impairment for purposes of the ADA.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
The regulation includes mental impairments within disability and describes mental impairment to include disorders such as emotional or mental illnesses.
Josephs v. Pacific Bell · filed 2005-12-27(g)(2)
The term “mental impairment” is not defined in the ADA. See 42 U.S.C. § 12101. ADA regulations however, rec- ognize that “mental impairments” are included within the term “disability,” and indirectly define this phrase to include “[a]ny mental or physiological disorder, such as . . . emotional or mental illnesses.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(g)(2) & (h)(2) (2005).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Section 1630.2(h)(2) defines mental impairment to include any mental or psychological disorder, including emotional or mental illness.
Kagawa v. First Hawaiian Bank/Bancwest Corp. · filed 2011-05-04(h)(2)
Although “mental impairment” is not defined in the ADA, the ADA regulations recognize this phrase as including “[a]ny mental or psychological disorder, such as ... emotional or mental illness.” ... These facts, taken together, plausibly allege that the Bank regarded Kagawa as having some kind of mental illness.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Section 1630.2(h)(2) defines mental impairment non-exhaustively to include mental or psychological disorders such as emotional or mental illness and specific learning disabilities.
Cain v. Esthetique · filed 2016-04-20(h)(2)
A “mental impairment” under the relevant implementing regulations means “[a]ny mental or psychological disorder, such as an intellectual disability ..., organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and specific learning disabilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(2).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
The regulation defines mental impairment to include any mental or psychological disorder, including emotional or mental illness; ordinary personality traits alone are not mental impairments unless they are symptoms of such a disorder.
Bruzzese v. Sessions · filed 2018-03-30(h)(2)
Under regulations promulgated by the EEOC, 4 mental impairment is defined as “[a]ny mental or psychological disorder,” including “emotional or mental illness . . .” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(2) (2012). By contrast, “common personality traits such as poor judgment or a quick temper” are not themselves impairments if they are not “symptoms of a mental or psychological disorder.” 29 C.F.R. Pt. 1630, App. § 1630.2(h) (2016). ... Personality traits are not, by themselves, a mental impairment. 29 C.F.R. Pt. 1630, App. § 1630.2(h).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Section 1630.2(h)(2) defines a mental impairment as any mental or psychological disorder, including emotional or mental illness and specific learning disabilities.
Ezenwanne v. Manhattan Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC · filed 2020-07-13(h)(2)
A “mental impairment” is “[a]ny mental or psychological disorder, such as an intellectual disability[,] . . . organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and specific learning disabilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(2). ... Ezenwanne meets that test. ... And in that light, a complete inability “to perform any job duties,” Compl. [1] ¶ 8 (emphasis added), is enough to infer a plausible claim, even assuming she must ultimately prove that she was “unable to work in a broad class of jobs,” Def.’s Mot. [3] at 7 (quoting Mora, 469 F. App’x at 297).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Section 1630.2(h)(2) defines mental impairment to include a mental or psychological disorder, and the court held that depression and anxiety qualify as an impairment only when actually diagnosed by a medical professional.
Jones v. McDonough · filed 2021-03-15(h)(2)
Just because someone calls herself anxious and depressed, however, does not mean that she suffers from a “mental or psychological disorder.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(2). In sum, the court finds, as a matter of law, that depression and anxiety, in order to qualify as an impairment under the ADA, must actually have been diagnosed by a medical professional, even if the condition does not actually meet all of the criteria for a disorder as defined by the DSM.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Section 1630.2(h)(2) defines mental impairment to include mental or psychological disorders, including emotional or mental illness and specific learning disabilities; under a regarded-as theory, the employer must perceive the person as impaired, not merely as choosing to behave inappropriately.
Forsyth v. University of Alabama, Board of Trustees · filed 2021-09-08(h)(2)
A “mental impairment” is “[a]ny mental or psychological disorder, such as an intellectual disability (formerly termed ‘mental retardation’), organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and specific learning disabilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(2). Under the “regarded as” theory, the perceived impairment need not “limit[] or [be] perceived to limit a major life activity” to be a disability, see 42 U.S.C. § 12102(3)(A); Lewis v. City of Union City, 934 F.3d 1169, 1181–82 (11th Cir. 2019). Importantly, what matters for the “regarded as” theory is whether the University perceived Forsyth as impaired, not whether he was actually impaired. See Carruthers v. BSA Advert., Inc., 357 F.3d 1213, 1216 (11th Cir. 2004).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Section 1630.2(h)(2) defines mental impairment to include any mental or psychological disorder, including emotional or mental illness.
Siriah v. University of Hawaii · filed 2024-11-30(h)(2)
Although “mental impairment” is not defined in the ADA, the ADA regulations recognize this phrase as including “[a]ny mental or psychological disorder, such as ... emotional or mental illness.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(2); Kagawa v. First Hawaiian Bank/Bancwest Corp., 819 F. Supp. 2d 1125, 1128 (D. Haw. 2011).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Disability and qualified individual definitions
The regulation defines disability broadly, including substantially limiting impairments and related coverage rules, and requires a failure-to-accommodate claimant to be an individual with a disability and a qualified individual with a disability.
Manga v. Small Business Administration · filed 2024-07-10(g), (i)(1)(i), (j)(1)(ii), (j)(1)(i), (h), (j)(ix), (g)(1), (m)
To prove that an appellant is an individual with a disability, she must show that she: (1) has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; (2) has a record of such impairment; or (3) is regarded as having such an impairment. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(g). Major life activities include sleeping, walking, and standing. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i)(1)(i). ... To establish disability discrimination based on a failure to accommodate claim, an employee must show that: (1) she is an individual with a disability, as defined by 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(g); (2) she is a qualified individual with a disability, as defined by 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m); and (3) the agency failed to provide a reasonable accommodation.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Subsections (g) and (m) define, respectively, an individual with a disability and a qualified individual with a disability for disability-discrimination claims.
Koletar v. United States Postal Service · filed 2014-10-17(g), (m)
To establish disability discrimination, an employee must show: (1) he is an individual with a disability, as defined by 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(g); (2) he is a qualified individual with a disability, as defined by 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m); and (3) the agency failed to provide a reasonable accommodation.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Section 1630.2 treats walking and working as major life activities, requires a substantial limitation across a class or broad range of jobs rather than just one job, and defines a qualified individual by the requisite skill, experience, education, and job-related requirements.
Kresge v. Circuitek, Division of TDI · filed 1997-03-24(h)(2)(i), (j)(3)(i), (m)
Under these regulations, major life activities include “earing for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.” ... The inability to stand or walk for prolonged periods even though most people may be able to do so, cannot be said to be a substantial limitation, and the inability to perform the tasks required of a single job is not a substantial impairment; the impairment would have to restrict the person from performing a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person with similar skills. ... A “qualified individual with a disability” refers to “an individual with a disability who satisfies the requisite skill, experience, education and other job-related requirements of the employment position____” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Section 1630.2(g) defines disability by an impairment substantially limiting a major life activity, and § 1630.2(m) defines a qualified individual as someone who can perform the essential functions of the position with or without reasonable accommodation.
Mustafa v. Clark County School District, Edward Goldman, and Daniel Hussey · filed 1998-09-22(g), (m)
An individual has a disability if he has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities, a record of such impairment, or is regarded as having such an impairment. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(g); ... Mustafa has raised a genuine issue of material fact whether he was disabled under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. ... Under the Rehabilitation Act, a “qualified individual” is an individual with a disability “who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of [the] position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Section 1630.2 defines a qualified individual by the ability to perform essential job functions and treats a person as substantially limited in working when a perceived impairment forecloses a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs, not merely one particular job.
Tullos v. City of Nassau Bay · filed 2005-06-13(g), (m), (l), (j)(3)(i), (j)(3)(ii)(B)
A “qualified individual,” as defined in the regulations implementing the ADA, is one “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). ... Because there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that Tullos was able to perform the essential functions of his position, and arguments that he could not be qualified as a matter of law were either not properly presented below or not sufficiently supported by the record, we cannot vacate the jury’s finding that Tullos was a qualified individual under the ADA. ... In any event, overall, considering the record as a whole, there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that Wrobleski’s perception of Tullos’s impairment would significantly limit Tullos from working in either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes. There was therefore sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that Wrobleski regarded Tullos as disabled.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Law changed since The ADAAA and 2011 EEOC revision removed the requirement that an employer perceive a substantial limitation of a major life activity; an ADA-prohibited action because of an actual or perceived impairment generally suffices, subject to the transitory-and-minor exception. The 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.
Section 1630.2(g)'s regarded-as category does not cover a temporary condition that is neither severe, permanent, nor long-term and therefore is not substantially limiting.
Kay v. Lester Coggins Trucking, Inc. · filed 2005-07-13(g)
The companion regulations provide that in order to prove that LCT ‘regarded her as disabled,’ Kay must establish any one of the following three requirements: (1) that she has a physical impairment that does not substantially limit any of her major life activities but is treated by LCT as constituting such a limitation; (2) that she has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one of her major life activities but only as a result of LCT’s attitude toward such impairment; or (3) that she has no physical or mental impairment but is treated by LCT as having such an impairment. See C.F.R. § 1630.2; Sutton, 119 S.Ct. at 2145-46; Rossbach v. City of Miami, 371 F.3d 1354, 1359-60 (11th Cir. 2004). ... Kay has produced no evidence that LCT erroneously perceived her to have a substantially limiting and significant impairment. Furthermore, her only impairment, real or imagined, was neither severe, permanent nor long-term for purposes of the ADA. It was temporary. ... For this reason, Kay cannot satisfy the third category of “disability” under 42 U.S.C. § 12201(2)(C) and 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(g).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Section 1630.2(g) supplies the disability definition, while § 1630.2(m) requires that a qualified individual satisfy the job’s requirements and be able to perform its essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation.
Leonard v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission · filed 2023-01-26(g), (m)
As noted by the administrative judge, to establish disability discrimination based on failure to accommodate, an employee must show that: (1) he is an individual with a disability, as defined by 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(g); (2) he is a qualified individual with a disability pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m); and (3) the agency failed to provide a reasonable accommodation. ... 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, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of such posi tion.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Section 1630.2(g) identifies who is an individual with a disability, while § 1630.2(m) identifies who is a qualified individual with a disability; both definitions are required elements of a failure-to-accommodate discrimination claim.
Stanislaw v. Department of Homeland Security · filed 2023-07-07(g), (m)
In order to establish disability discrimination based on a failure to accommodate, an employee must show the following: (1) she is an individual with a disability, as defined by 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(g); (2) she is a qualified individual with a disability, as defined by 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m); and (3) the agency failed to provide a reasonable accommodation. Id. ... Here, although the arbitrator concluded that the appellant did not prove her failure to accommodate disability discrimination claim, RFR File, Tab 1 at 65, it is unclear what analytical framework he employed in reaching this conclusion . To this end, although he summarized the appellant’s arguments regarding her medical condition, id. at 53, the arbitrator did not discernably issue a finding regarding whether she is a qualified individual with a disability under 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m), or whether she is an individual with a disability under 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(g).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Sections 1630.2(g) and 1630.2(m) supply the disability and qualified-individual definitions that must be satisfied in a failure-to-accommodate disability-discrimination claim.
Hazel Brown v. Department of the Air Force · filed 2024-06-28(g), (m)
An appellant may establish a disability discrimination claim based on failure to accommodate by showing by preponderant evidence that: (1) she is an individual with a disability as defined by 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(g); (2) she is a qualified individual with a disability, as defined by 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m); and (3) the agency failed to provide her a reasonable accommodation.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Reasonable accommodation—impact on other employees
Section 1630.2(p)(2) requires an undue-hardship analysis to consider the accommodation’s impact on facility operations, including other employees’ ability to perform their duties and the facility’s ability to conduct business.
Shelton v. Department of Homeland Security · filed 2024-03-18(p)(2)(v)
The regulation at 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(p)(2) sets forth several factors to consider in evaluating undue hardship. It is true that several of these factors involve an assessment of the agency’s financial resources and/or the financial cost of the accommodation. However, the last factor is not explicitly financial or economic in nature. Rather, it requires consideration of 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)(2)(v). This factor is critical to the outcome of this matter. Indeed, the agency persuasively explained that, if it granted the appellant’s reasonable accommodation request, it would face a significant difficulty in terms of the potentially catastrophic risk to other agency employees, detainees, and other members of the public of contracting—and possibly dying from—COVID-19. Accordingly, we agree with the administrative judge that the agency satisfied its burden to show undue hardship, and the appellant cannot prevail on this claim.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Section 1630.2(p)(2)(v) does not require an accommodation that would cause other employees to work harder or longer.
Turco v. Hoechst Celanese Corporation, Hoechst Celanese Chemical Group, Inc. · filed 1997-02-13(p)(2)(v)
And an accommodation that would result in other employees having to work harder or longer is not required under the ADA.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Section 1630.2(p)(2)(v) makes the impact of an accommodation on other employees’ ability to perform their duties a relevant factor in deciding whether the accommodation is reasonable.
Johnson v. City of Midwest City · filed 1999-01-13(p)(2)(v)
An accommodation that would result in other employees having to work harder or longer hours is not required. See 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(p)(2)(v)(impact to other employees on their ability to do their duties is a relevant factor in determining the reasonableness of an accommodation).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
When assessing undue hardship, the regulation considers the accommodation's impact on the facility, including its effect on other employees' ability to perform their duties.
Bryant v. Caritas Norwood Hospital · filed 2004-11-24(p)(2)(v)
In determining such “difficulty or expense,” the factors to be considered include “[t]he impact of the accommodation upon the operation of the facility, including the impact on the ability of other employees to perform their duties.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(p)(2)(v). Caritas has made an unrebutted showing that the accommodation requested by Bryant would require it to shift responsibility for an essential function of her job — any and all “heavy lifting” — to her co-workers. Shouldering this portion of Bryant’s load would have- a deleterious impact on the ability of her co-workers to do their own jobs.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
The regulation defines physical or mental impairment and major life activities, and the substantial-limitation inquiry excludes walking limitations consisting only of a moderately below-average speed.
Dodgens v. Kent Manufacturing Co. · filed 1997-02-20(h)(1) (i) (j)
The regulations define “physical or mental impairment” as “[a]ny physiological disorder, or condition ... affecting one or more of’ various body systems. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1). “Major life activities” are defined as “caring for one ... self, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i). ... Furthermore, the interpretive guidelines of the ADA provide that an individual who, as a result of a physical impairment, can walk only at a moderately below-average speed is not substantially limited in the major life activity of walking. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j) app. at 340; ... Therefore, Dodgens has failed to produce sufficient evidence to withstand the motion for summary judgment on his ADA claim.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Section 1630.2(p)(2)(v) makes the effect on other employees’ work relevant when evaluating an accommodation.
Milton v. Scrivner, Inc., Gary Massey v. Scrivner, Inc. · filed 1995-04-21(p)(2)(v)
An accommodation that would result in other employees having to worker harder or longer hours is not required.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Substantial limitation in working and record of impairment
Law changed since The ADAAA (effective Jan. 1, 2009) and EEOC’s 2011 revision replaced the old significant or severe restriction test with a broad, nondemanding substantial-limitation standard. For actual disability based on working, the class or broad range of jobs inquiry remains. The 2011 EEOC revision removed former § 1630.2(j)(3)’s required geographic-area and local job-market factors; the class or broad range of jobs inquiry for working remains.
To establish a substantial limitation in working, a person must show significant restriction from a class or broad range of jobs, with the relevant geographic area and disqualified jobs considered; to establish a record of impairment, the employer-reliant record must indicate a substantially limiting impairment.
Williams v. Kerr-McGee Corp. · filed 1997-04-01(j)(3)(i), (j)(3)(ii), (k)
Furthermore, Ms. Williams did not explain, nor did she offer the testimony of a vocational expert to explain, what class of jobs or broad range of jobs in various classes she was significantly restricted in her ability to perform. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i). There was also no evidence regarding the geographical area which she had reasonable access to in order to work and what jobs she was disqualified from within that geographical area. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(ii). ... Finally, in order to prove that she had a record of having an impairment which substantially limited one or more of her major life activities, Ms. Williams had to prove that the record relied on by Kerr-McGee indicated that she had such an impairment. The evidence revealed that she provided Dr. Gibbs with a letter from Dr. Kanaa and Dr. Kanaa’s treatment records in an attempt to establish that she was disabled. However, the letter from Dr. Kanaa did not state that he had diagnosed her with lupus and did not state that her medical condition substantially limited any major life activity.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
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)(2) treats mental or psychological disorders, including emotional or mental illness, as mental impairments, while § 1630.2(j)(3)(I) requires a significant restriction in a class or broad range of jobs, rather than inability to perform one particular job, to substantially limit the major life activity of working.
Polderman v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. · filed 1999-01-27(h)(2), (j)(3)(I)
The regulations define “a physical or mental impairment” as including “any mental or psychological disorder, such as ... emotional or mental illness”. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(2) (1998). ... [t]he term substantially limits means significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities. The inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working. ... This difficulty is not sufficient to demonstrate a “substantial limitation” within the meaning of the ADA.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
For substantial limitation in working, § 1630.2(j)(3) compares the ability to perform a class or broad range of jobs with that of similarly trained people and considers impairment, geography, and disqualified jobs; § 1630.2(k) permits a medical letter describing an impairment and its severity to qualify as a record of impairment.
Thompson v. AT&T CORP. · filed 2005-03-17(j)(3), (k)
In determining if the Plaintiff is substantially limited in the major life activity of working, the Court must consider the Plaintiffs “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); ... While not a typical medical record, such as a medical chart, the letter from Dr. Silverman sets forth the Plaintiffs illness and an assessment of its severity and the need for medications and a request for accommodations to facilitate recovery. The letter discloses a medical condition that would otherwise be kept confidential. Therefore, it appears to be an acceptable document to qualify as a “record” as set forth in 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(k), App.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
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) requires a significant restriction compared with the average person to establish a substantial limitation, while § 1630.2(k) requires a record of an impairment that previously substantially limited a major life activity.
Collado v. United Parcel Service Co. · filed 2005-08-02(j)(1) (k)
There is nothing to suggest that Collado is “significantly restricted” in eating as compared to “the average person in the general population.” See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1) (defining when an impairment is “substantially limiting”). ... Instead, a plaintiff must show that the impairment he suffered in the past substantially limited him in at least one major life activity. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(k); see also Hillburn v. Murata Elec. N. Am., Inc., 181 F.3d 1220, 1228–29 (11th Cir. 1999).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Law changed since The ADAAA and 2011 EEOC revision removed the requirement that an employer perceive a substantial limitation of a major life activity; an ADA-prohibited action because of an actual or perceived impairment generally suffices, subject to the transitory-and-minor exception.
Section 1630.2(g)(2) includes emotional or mental illnesses within mental impairments covered by disability, and § 1630.2(j)(3)(i) requires that a perceived inability to work substantially limit the person from working in a class or broad range of jobs.
Joshua Liam Josephs, AKA Joshua Liam Joesphs, Joshua Liam Josepths v. Pacific Bell, and Does, 1-30, Inclusive · filed 2005-12-27(g)(2), (j)(3)(i)
ADA regulations however, recognize that "mental impairments" are included within the term "disability," and indirectly define this phrase to include "[a]ny mental or physiological disorder, such as . . . emotional or mental illnesses." 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(g)(2) & (h)(2) (2005). ... Under the ADA, when the "major life activity" that is "substantially limit[ed]" is working, the employee must be regarded as unable to work in 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).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Section 1630.2 treats a person as disabled if an impairment substantially limits a major life activity, if the person has a qualifying record of such an impairment, or if the person is regarded as having one; substantial limitation is assessed by the regulatory factors and can result from combined impairments.
Kim v. Potter · filed 2006-04-26(g), (h), (f), (j), and (k)
There may be circumstances in which a series of non-substantial impairments, put together, have the net effect of substantially impairing one or more major life activities. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j) App. (“Multiple impairments that combine to substantially limit one or more of an individual’s major life activities also constitute a disability.”). The instant case, however, does not present those circumstances. In sum, the court recognizes that Ho has several permanent physical impairments that restrict his ability to walk, stand, lift, reach, and drive. There is no genuine issue of material fact, however, as to whether these impairments (either alone or in concert) substantially limit any major life activity.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Law changed since The 2011 EEOC revision removed former § 1630.2(j)(2)’s required nature, severity, duration, and long-term-impact checklist; duration may still inform the individualized assessment.
Section 1630.2(j)(2) directs courts to assess substantial limitation by considering an impairment’s nature and severity, duration, and permanent or long-term impact, while § 1630.2(k) treats a history of an impairment that would substantially limit a major life activity, including cancer history, as covered.
Adams v. Rice · filed 2008-07-18(j)(2), (k)
Finally, in determining the substantiality of a claimed limitation, we may consider: (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) (EEOC regulations interpreting the ADA); cf. Toyota, 534 U.S. at 194 (assuming without deciding that EEOC regulations are reasonable and declining to decide what deference, if any, they are due). ... According to the guidance, “[t]he impairment indicated in the record must be an impairment that would substantially limit one or more of the individual’s major life activities.” 29 C.F.R. pt. 1630, app. § 1630.2(k) (emphasis added). And cancer, the guidance suggests, is a paradigmatic example of just such an impairment. See id. (“[T]his provision protects former cancer patients from discrimination based on their prior medical history.”).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Law changed since Same change as noted above.
Section 1630.2(j)(2) directs courts to assess substantial limitation by considering the impairment’s nature and severity, duration or expected duration, and long-term impact, while § 1630.2(k) requires a record of impairment showing a history of a mental or physical impairment that substantially limits a major life activity.
Pandey v. Bio-Medical Applications of Minnesota, Inc. · filed 2009-08-10(j)(2) (k)
To determine whether an individual is substantially impaired, courts consider: (1) the impairment’s nature and severity; (2) its duration or expected duration; and (3) its long-term impact. ... Again, a record of impairment must establish “a history of ... a mental or physical impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(k).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Subsection (j)(1)(iv) requires “substantially limits” to be applied using a lower degree of functional limitation after the 2008 Amendments, while subsection (k) covers a history of or misclassification as having an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity.
Neely v. Benchmark Family Services · filed 2016-01-26(j)(1)(iv), (k)
Fully recognizing that “the term ‘substantially limits’ shall be interpreted and applied to require a degree of functional limitation that is lower than the standard for ‘substantially limits’ applied prior to the [2008 Amendments],” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(iv), we still conclude that Neely fails to carry his burden of establishing that his sleep problems were a “substantial limitation” on a major life activity. ... We therefore hold that Neely’s self-described symptoms to his physicians, without corroborating medical evidence or any diagnosis are insufficient to establish a substantial limitation on a major life activity. ... A plaintiff has a “record of impairment” if he “has a history of, or has been misclassified as having, a mental or physical impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.” Spence v. Donahoe, 515 F. App'x 561, 570 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing MX Group, Inc. v. City of Covington, 293 F.3d 326, 339 (6th Cir. 2002)); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(k) (2012). ... Neely has failed to establish a “record of impairment.”Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Reasonable accommodation and substantially limiting impairment
Section 1630.2 treats reasonable accommodation as a work-related modification enabling essential job functions and requires individualized proof that an impairment substantially limits a major life activity; temporary inebriation and treatment history alone are insufficient.
Burch v. Coca-Cola Co. · filed 1997-08-04(o)(1)(ii), (j), (k)
In addition to repeating the examples of reasonable accommodations set forth in the statute, the regulations define the term as “[m]odifications or adjustments to the work environment, or to the manner or circumstances under which the position held or desired is customarily performed, that enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of that position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii) (1996). ... Accordingly, an employee who requests only the opportunity to return to an unmodified, previously-held position fails to state a cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5). ... Permanency, not frequency, is the touchstone of a substantially-limiting impairment. ... 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j), App. (1996) (“[T]emporary, non-chronic impairments of short duration, with little or no long term or permanent impact, are usually not disabilities.”). ... “(k) Has a record of such impairment means has a history of, or has been misclassified as having, a mental or physical impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(k) (1996) (second emphasis added). ... Accordingly, we hold that Burch was not an individual with a record of an impairment that substantially limited any major life activity under section 12102(2)(B).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Substantial limitation in the major life activity of working
These provisions treat a specific learning disability as a mental impairment and define substantial limitation by comparing performance with the average person generally, or, for working, with a person having comparable training, skills, and abilities, while considering the classes and ranges of jobs from which the impairment disqualifies the individual.
Bartlett v. New York State Board of Law Examiners · filed 1997-07-03(h)(2), (j)(1), (j)(1)(ii), (j)(3)(i), (j)(3)(ii), (j)(3)(ii)(B), and (j)(3)(ii)(C)
However, when I consider whether plaintiff is substantially limited in the major life activity of working, an entirely different reference group must be utilized. No longer is plaintiff compared to the “average person in the general population.” Instead, the relevant comparison group is “the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Law changed since Same change as noted above.
Section 1630.2(j)(1)(2) measures a substantial limitation by the impairment’s nature and severity, its duration, and its permanent or long-term impact.
Poindexter v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. · filed 1997-08-08(j)(1)(2)
Three factors must be considered in determining whether a substantial limitation is present: “(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.”Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
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 is substantially limited in a major life activity when unable to perform it as the average person can or significantly restricted in the condition, manner, or duration compared with the average person.
Bercovitch v. Baldwin School · filed 1998-01-14(j)(1)
Under the regulations for Title I of the ADA (which uses the same definition of disability as Title III), a person is "substantially limited" in a major life activity when he is (i) Unable to perform a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform; or [is] (ii) Significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under which [he] 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.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
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) identifies the nature and severity, duration or expected duration, and permanent or long term impact as factors to consider in deciding whether an individual is substantially limited in a major life activity.
Fromm-Vane v. Lawnwood Medical Center, Inc. · filed 1997-12-12(j)(2)
In determining whether an individual is substantially limited in a major life activity, the following factors should be considered: 1) the nature and severity of the impairment, 2) the duration or expected duration of the impairment, and 3) the permanent or long term impact, or the expected permanent or long term impact of or resulting from the impairment. 29 C.F. R. § 1630.2(j)(2).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Law changed since Same change as noted above.
The regulation directs courts to assess substantial limitation by considering the impairment’s nature and severity, its duration or expected duration, and its permanent or long-term impact.
Martin v. PGA Tour, Inc. · filed 1998-02-19(j)(2)
The following factors should be considered in determining whether an individual is substantially limited in a major life activity: ... 1. the nature and severity of the impairment; ... 2. the duration or expected of the impairment; and ... 3. the permanent or long term impact, or the expected permanent or long term impact of or resulting from the impairment. ... 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(2). ... Temporary, non-chronic impairments of short duration, with little or no long term or permanent impact, are usually not disabilities. ... Plaintiff has the burden of demonstrating that he is disabled and has done so.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
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 defines “substantially limits” to mean being unable to perform a major life activity or being significantly restricted in the condition, manner, or duration of performing it.
Sandra Lea Benedict v. Eau Claire Public Schools, Wisconsin Education Ass'n Council, Thomas Blount, Michael Burke · filed 1998-03-05(j)(1)(i)-(ii)
"Substantially limits," in turn, means that an individual is "unable to perform a major life activity" or is "significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under which an individual can perform a major life activity." 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(i)-(ii).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
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.
Section 1630.2 identifies major life activities and requires evidence that an impairment excludes a person from a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs, including comparable-job and geographic-area evidence, to substantially limit the major life activity of working.
Taylor v. Phoenixville School District · filed 1998-03-20(i), (j)(3)(i), (j)(3)(ii)(A)
Although these terms are not defined in the statute, the regulations define “major life activities” as “functions such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i). For an impairment to substantially limit major life activities, the impairment must be a “ ‘significant’ restriction” on the major life activity. ... Here, the proper inquiry is whether the individual is impeded 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). To make out such a claim, a plaintiff must present demographic evidence to show from what jobs in her geographic area plaintiff has been excluded due to her disability.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
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(j)(1) treats a person as substantially limited when unable to perform a major life activity or significantly restricted compared with the general population, and section 1630.2(j)(2) directs courts to consider the impairment’s nature and severity, duration, and long-term impact.
Green v. Rosemont Industries, Inc. · filed 1998-04-17(j)(1), (j)(2)
“Substantially limits” means either the inability to perform a major life activity, or a significant restriction on a major life activity as compared to the general population. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(l). The EEOC regulations provide that, in determining whether an individual is substantially limited in a major life activity, a court should consider: 1) the nature and severity of the impairment; 2) the duration of the impairment; and 3) its long term impact. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(2). Generally, short term restrictions are not substantially limiting.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
The regulation defines a substantial limitation by comparing the condition, manner, or duration in which a person performs a major life activity with the average person in the general population.
Driesse v. Florida Board of Regents · filed 1998-10-07(j)(l)(ii)
A person’s abilities are “substantially limited” when they are “significantly 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.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(l)(ii). ... Therefore, Driesse has created a question of fact as to whether his condition substantially limits the major life activity of walking or standing. This question of fact precludes summary judgment.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Section 1630.2 treats working as a major life activity and requires a substantial limitation affecting a class or broad range of jobs, not merely one particular job.
Young v. U.S. West Communications, Inc. · filed 1998-12-09(i), (j)(3)
Major life activities include functions such as "caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working." 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i). ... The inability to perform a single particular job does not constitute substantial limitation in the major life activity of working. See Bolton, 36 F.3d at 942; 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
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 major life activity is substantially limited when a person cannot perform a basic function that the average person in the general population can perform or is significantly restricted in the condition, manner, or duration of performing it compared with an average person.
Marie Land, Individually and as Natural Guardian of Megan Land, a Minor v. Baptist Medical Center · filed 1999-01-06(j)(1)
A major life activity is substantially limited if an individual is unable to "perform a basic function that the average person in the general population can perform" or is significantly restricted in "the condition, manner, or duration under which [she] can perform a particular major life activity as compared to an average person in the general population." Snow v. Ridgeview Med. Ctr., 128 F.3d 1201, 1206 (8th Cir.1997); see 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1) (1998). Whether a major life activity is substantially limited is an individualized and fact-specific inquiry. See Colwell v. Suffolk County Police Dep't, 158 F.3d 635, 643 (2d Cir.1998).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Law changed since Same change as noted above.
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 performs a major life activity compared with the average person, and the court held that a jury could find that standard met here.
Joyce Workman, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Frito-Lay, Inc., Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appellee · filed 1999-01-15(j)(1)(ii)
Regarding the first prong, actual disability, the jury could have decided that controlling one’s bowels is a major life activity and that Workman’s condition sometimes left her “[significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under which [she could] perform a particular major life activity as compared to ... the average person in the géneral population” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii), if they chose to credit evidence that she needed to be free to go to the bathroom whenever she felt the urge as an important element of her “retraining.”Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
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 require the disability inquiry to disregard the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures, except ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses. The ADAAA rejected Toyota’s strict central-importance test, and the 2011 EEOC revision broadened the nonexhaustive major-life-activities definition.
The regulation defines major life activities as basic activities performed by the average person with little or no difficulty and defines substantial limitation by reference to inability or significant restriction compared with the general population, considering the impairment’s factors and mitigating measures.
Teresita Pack v. Kmart Corporation, a Michigan Corporation Steve Nicholas, an Individual, Equal Employment Opportunity C · filed 1999-02-04(i), (j)(1), (j)(2), (j)(1)(i) and (ii)
Thus, in order to establish that she was substantially limited in the major life activity of sleeping, Pack was required to establish that she was unable to sleep or was significantly restricted as to the condition, manner, or duration of her ability to sleep as compared to the average person in the general population, taking into consideration the three factors and any mitigating or corrective measures.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
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 consideration of an impairment’s severity, duration, and long-term impact in deciding whether it substantially limits a major life activity, while § 1630.2(j)(3)(i) provides that inability to perform one particular job is not a substantial limitation on working.
Collins v. Christopher · filed 1999-05-25(j)(2), (j)(3)(i)
The regulations recommend that the following factors be considered in determining whether an individual is substantially limited in a major life activity: “(i) the nature and severity of the impairment; (ii) the duration or expected duration of the impairment; 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). ... Under the EEOC guidelines, an individual’s ability to work is substantially limited (among other indicia) 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). The regulations make clear that “the inability to perform in a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working.” Id. ... Collins’ has failed to demonstrate that her post-operative diarrhea and cramping — though it may have been unpleasant — rose to the level of a disability. ... Summary judgment on this claim is granted.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Law changed since The ADAAA (effective Jan. 1, 2009) and EEOC’s 2011 revision replaced the old significant or severe restriction test with a broad, nondemanding substantial-limitation standard.
Section 1630.2(j) treats a major life activity as substantially limited when the individual is significantly restricted in performing it compared with the average person.
Kohn v. AT & T CORP. · filed 1999-06-21(j)
To be considered “substantially limit[ed]” in a major life activity, a plaintiff must be significantly restricted in the performance of the activity, compared to the average person. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Section 1630.2(j)(ii) requires a significant, individualized restriction in a major life activity, taking account of compensating measures; a mere difference in how the activity is performed is insufficient.
Albertson's, Inc. v. Kirkingburg · filed 1999-06-22(j)(ii)
In giving its affirmative answer, the Ninth Circuit relied on a regulation issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), defining “substantially limits” as “[significantly restriet[s] 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 gen*564eral population can perform that same major life activity.” § 1630.2( j)(ii). ... First, although the EEOC definition *565of “substantially limits” cited by the Ninth Circuit requires a “significant restriction]” in an individual’s manner of performing a major life activity, the court appeared willing to settle for a mere difference. ... We have just held, however, in Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc., ante, at 482, that mitigating measures must be taken into account in judging whether an individual possesses a disability. ... Finally, and perhaps most significantly, the Court of Appeals did not pay much heed to the statutory obligation to determine the existence of disabilities on a ease-by-ease basis. ... We simply hold that the Act requires monocular individuals, like others claiming the Act’s protection, to prove a disability by offering evidence that the extent of the limitation in terms of their own experience, as in loss of depth perception and visual field, is substantial.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Law changed since Same change as noted above.
Section 1630.2(j)(1) defines a substantially limiting impairment as one that prevents or significantly restricts performance of a major life activity compared with the average person.
Hemsing v. Philips · filed 1999-07-09(j)(1)
In order for a physical impairment to be substantially limiting, the individual must be: (i) Unable to perform a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform; or (ii) Significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under which an individual can perform a particular major life activity as compared to the condition, manner or duration under which the average person in the general population can perform the same major life activity. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1). ... The district court found that Hemsing failed to demonstrate that she is substantially physically impaired in a major life activity, including working. ... The evidence supports the district court’s conclusion granting summary judgment on Hemsing’s claim for disability discrimination.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
When working is the major life activity at issue, a substantial limitation requires inability to work in a broad range of jobs.
Weber v. Strippit, Inc. Idex Corp. James Blackstone · filed 1999-07-29(j)(3)
Because the jury was at least implicitly invited to find that defendants treated Weber as if he was unable to work, and because the regulations set forth specific requirements that must be met before a limit on an individual’s ability to work may be deemed “substantial,” it was important for the court to instruct the jury on these requirements.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Law changed since Same change as noted above.
A person is substantially limited in learning only when unable to learn as the average person does or significantly restricted in the condition, manner, or duration of learning compared with the average person.
Li v. Intel Corp. · filed 2002-05-28(j)(i)
Li neither demonstrates an inability to learn as “the average person in the general population can perform [learning],” or show that she is “significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under which [she] can perform learning” when compared to the average person. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(i).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Law changed since Same change as noted above.
Section 1630.2(j) treats an impairment as substantially limiting a major life activity when it significantly restricts the manner or condition in which the person performs it compared with the average person.
Powell v. City of Pittsfield · filed 2002-08-21(j)
The evidence showed that Powell could not choose to be intimate with his wife without running the risk of endangering her life. Put differently, Powell’s hepatitis C “significantly] restricted] the ... manner or condition under which” Powell could engage in reproduction or sexual relations “as compared to the average person in the general population’s ability to perform that same major life activity.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j). Therefore, Powell proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he was “disabled” within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Section 1630.2(j)(2) requires substantial limitation to be assessed by comparing the individual’s restriction with the condition, manner, or duration in which the average person performs the same major life activity.
Lyons v. Louisiana Pacific Corp. · filed 2002-09-04(j)(2)
The EEOC’s regulations state that the individual’s significant restriction must be “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)(2).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
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” by comparing a person’s ability to perform a major life activity with that of the average person and, for working, asks whether the person is significantly restricted from a class or broad range of jobs.
Felten v. Eyemart Express, Inc. · filed 2003-01-23(j)(i), (j)(2), (j)(3)(i), (j)(3)(ii)
For working, “substantially limits” requires that a person be significantly restricted in performing either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Section 1630.2(j)(1) treats an inability to lift more than ten pounds, under the circumstances presented, as not substantially limiting the major life activity of lifting.
Cortes v. Sky Chefs, Inc. · filed 2003-06-13(j)(1)
We agree with the District Court that, under the circumstances presented, plaintiff did not establish that his inability to lift more than ten pounds was a substantial limitation on the “major life activity” of lifting under the ADA.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Law changed since Same change as noted above.
Section 1630.2(j)(3) requires a significant restriction from a class or broad range of jobs to show a substantial limitation in working; inability to perform one particular job is insufficient, and the listed geographic and job-category factors may be considered.
Johnson v. Baylor University · filed 2003-10-02(j)(3)(i), (j)(3)(ii)
A review of the evidence, through the three factors outlined in 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(ii), reveals insufficient evidence to prevent summary judgment. First, Johnson's deposition and Reynolds’s affidavit show conclusively that Reynolds regarded Johnson as a skilled pilot. Both parties acknowledge that Reynolds did not believe Johnson was unable to work in the class of pilot jobs because of his weight. Second, Johnson offers no evidence that Baylor thought his weight made him unemployable in the Waco area labor market or elsewhere, and thus Reynolds’s affidavit to the contrary stands unopposed. Finally, Johnson offers no evidence to contradict Baylor’s affidavit that Baylor believed Johnson could obtain work in another class of jobs, such as airplane maintenance.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Law changed since The ADAAA (effective Jan. 1, 2009) and EEOC’s 2011 revision replaced the old significant or severe restriction test with a broad, nondemanding substantial-limitation standard. The 2011 EEOC revision removed former § 1630.2(j)(2)’s required nature, severity, duration, and long-term-impact checklist; duration may still inform the individualized assessment.
The regulation defines substantial limitation by comparing performance with that of an average person or by significant restrictions on the condition, manner, or duration of performance, and directs consideration of the impairment’s nature, severity, duration, and long-term impact.
Benette v. Cinemark U.S.A., Inc. · filed 2003-11-21(j)(1)(i)-(ii), (j)(2)
A major life activity is substantially limited when an individual cannot perform an activity that an average person in the general population could perform, or faces significant restrictions in the “condition, manner, or duration under which the individual can ... perform [the] activity.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(l)(i)-(ii). To determine whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity, the regulations suggest that the following factors 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 of or resulting from the impairment. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(2).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
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) identifies the factors for determining whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity, including its severity, duration, and long-term impact.
Howard Baer, Inc. v. Schave · filed 2003-12-18(j)(2)(i)-(iii)
“[t]he nature and severity of the impairment; [t]he duration or expected duration of the impairment; and [tjhe permanent or long-term impact, or the expected permanent or long-term impact of or resulting from the impairment.”Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
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(j)(1) defines “substantially limits” by inability or significant restriction compared with the average person, and § 1630.2(j)(2) requires considering the impairment’s nature, severity, duration, and expected long-term impact.
Labrecque v. Sodexho USA, Inc. · filed 2003-10-17(j)(1), (j)(2)
Regulations promulgated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) define “substantially limits” as: ... (i) Unable to perform a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform; ... (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 an average person can perform that same major life activity. ... 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(l). Additionally, in determining whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity, it is proper to consider the nature and severity of the impairment, the duration of the impairment, and the expected long-term impact of the impairment. ... 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(2). Impairments that “interfere in only a minor way” with major life activities are not substantial.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
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 “substantially limits” and directs courts to consider the nature and severity, duration or expected duration, and permanent or long-term impact of an impairment when deciding whether it substantially limits a major life activity.
Albert v. Smith's Food & Drug Centers, Inc. · filed 2004-01-29(j)
The relevant regulations state: (1) The term substantially limits means: (i) Unable to perform a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform; or (ii) Significantly restricted as to the condition, manner, or duration under which an individual can perform a particular major life activity as compared to the condition, manner, or duration under which the average person in the general population can perform that same major life activity. (2) The following factors should be considered in determining whether an individual is substantially limited in a major life activity: (i) The nature and severity of the impairment; (ii) the duration or expected duration of the impairment; and (iii) the permanent or long term impact of or resulting from the impairment.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Section 1630.2(j) requires an impairment to substantially limit a major life activity relative to the average person; severe but intermittent episodes did not establish that limitation here.
Rohan v. Networks Presentations LLC · filed 2004-07-08(j)
Consequently, their affidavits do not alter our conclusion that Rohan has not shown that she is " significantly restricted" relative to "the average person in the general population." 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j) (emphasis added).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Law changed since The ADAAA (effective Jan. 1, 2009) and EEOC’s 2011 revision replaced the old significant or severe restriction test with a broad, nondemanding substantial-limitation standard.
The regulation treats an impairment as substantially limiting when it prevents a major life activity or significantly restricts the condition, manner, or duration in which the activity can be performed compared with the average person.
Parker v. Albertson's, Inc. · filed 2004-07-08(j)(1)
In order for a physical impairment to be “substantially limiting,” the individual must be: (a) unable to perform a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform; or (b) 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.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Section 1630.2(j)(1) defines a substantial limitation by comparing the person's ability to perform a major life activity with that of the average person in the general population.
Johnson v. City of New York · filed 2004-07-21(j)(1)
One who is “substantially limited” in a major life activity is either unable to perform such activity or “significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration” under which the activity can be performed “as compared to the condition, manner or duration under which the average person in the general population can perform that same major life activity.”Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
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, assessed by the impairment's severity, duration, and long-term impact.
Genthe v. Quebecor World Lincoln · filed 2004-10-18(i), (j)(1)(i), (j)(2)(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). Major life activities include caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working, 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i), as well as sitting, standing, lifting, and reaching. Fjellestad v. Pizza Hut of America, Inc., 188 F.3d 944, 948 (8th Cir.1999). 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).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
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 substantial limitation by comparison with the average person, and § 1630.2(j)(2) directs consideration of severity, duration, and long-term impact.
Brown v. UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST. NO. 500, KANSAS CITY · filed 2005-04-05(j)(1), (j)(2)
A person is substantially limited in a major life activity if she is: (i) unable to perform a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform; or (ii) significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under which an individual can perform a particular major life activity as compared to the condition, manner, or duration under which the average person in the general population can perform that same major life activity. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(l); ... In determining whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity, the court should 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. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(2); ... Whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity is determined on an individual, case-by-case basis. ... Accordingly, the court finds that the record creates genuine issues of fact regarding whether plaintiff had a disability within the meaning of the ADA.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
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 when an impairment substantially limits a major life activity, including inability to perform the activity or significant restriction compared with the average person.
Garvin v. Potter · filed 2005-04-22(j)(1)
Because the Rehabilitation Act regulations provide no guidance as to what constitutes a “substantial limitation,” Second Circuit courts have looked to EEOC regulations implementing the ADA, which define the' term to mean: “(i) Unable to perform a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform; dr (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.” ... Whether a physical impairment substantially limits a major life activity is an “individualized and fact-specific” inquiry.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
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) treats an impairment as substantially limiting when it prevents a major life activity or significantly restricts its condition, manner, or duration compared with the average person, while subsection (j)(2) directs consideration of the impairment’s type, severity, duration, expected long-term impact, and mitigating or corrective measures.
Burns v. Snow · filed 2005-05-16(j)(1), (j)(2)
A “major life activity” is a “basic activity that the average person in the general population can perform with little or no difficulty,” and includes walking, standing, sitting, lifting and working. ... In order for the impairment to be substantially limiting, the individual must be: (1) [u]nable to perform a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform; or (2) [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 496 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)). ... To aid in assessing whether a major life activity is substantially limited, the evaluator must consider the type and severity of the impairment, the length of time the impairment has lasted or is expected to last, and the expected permanent and/or long-term impact of the impairment, 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(2), as well as any mitigating or corrective measures. ... Even though she now complains she had difficulty walking and standing on three or four occasions during her eleven months of employment at the Mint, this is clearly insufficient to show she cannot perform these activities in the condition, manner or duration of the average person.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Law changed since The ADAAA and 2011 EEOC revision require the disability inquiry to disregard the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures, except ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses.
Section 1630.2 treats seeing as a major life activity and assesses substantial limitation by comparing the person's ability with that of the average person while considering the impairment's severity, duration, permanence, and corrective measures.
Anthony P. Capobianco, Jr. v. City of New York and New York City Department of Sanitation, Docket No. 04-3230-Cv · filed 2005-09-01(i), (j)(1)(ii), (j)(2)
The EEOC regulations define “major life activities” to include “functions such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i); ... The regulations define the term “substantially limits” to mean: ... (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)(l). Factors to consider in determining whether a major life activity is substantially limited include: the nature and severity of the impairment; its duration or expected duration; and the existence of any actual or expected permanent or long term impact. ... Fourth, the factors to be considered under the EEOC regulations at least arguably support the conclusion that the limitation is substantial, as the record contains evidence that: the impairment severely limits Capobianco’s ability to see at night or in dim light; the impairment cannot be corrected by surgery, glasses, contact lenses, or other optical means; and the impact is permanent. ... A jury could surely find, from this combination of circumstances, that Capobian-co’s night blindness significantly restricts the manner in which he can see as compared to the “average person in the general population.”Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
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(j) treats an impairment as substantially limiting when it prevents or significantly restricts a major life activity and directs consideration of its nature, severity, duration, and long-term impact.
Didier v. Schwan Food Co. · filed 2005-09-21(j)(1)(i), (j)(2)(i)
An impairment is “substantially limiting” if it renders an individual unable to perform a major life activity which 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). ... The following 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).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Law changed since The ADAAA (effective Jan. 1, 2009) and EEOC’s 2011 revision replaced the old significant or severe restriction test with a broad, nondemanding substantial-limitation standard. For actual disability based on working, the class or broad range of jobs inquiry remains.
Section 1630.2(j)(3)(i) treats working as substantially limited when a person is significantly restricted in performing either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes.
Novak v. Principi · filed 2006-07-24(j)(3)(i)
This means that Novak is “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).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
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.
An impairment is substantially limiting only when it prevents or significantly restricts a major life activity, evaluated by the impairment's nature and severity, duration, and long-term impact.
Schulz v. Rental Services · filed 2006-10-13(j)(1), (j)(2)(i)
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). When determining if a person is substantially limited in a major life activity, we consider 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). ... RSC never regarded it as more than a temporary condition. Accordingly, RSC did not believe Schulz had a substantially limiting impairment.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
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 § 1630.2(j)(2) directs courts to consider the impairment’s nature and severity, duration, and permanent or long-term impact; applying those factors, the court held that the employer did not regard Snyder as substantially limited.
Snyder v. Norfolk Southern Railway Corp. · filed 2006-11-15(j)(1), (j)(2)
The factors a court should consider to determine if a person is substantially limited in a major life activity include: (1) the nature and severity of the impairment; (2) the duration or expected duration; and (3) the expected or actual permanent or long-term impact of or resulting from the impairment. ... In addition, the application of the factors spelled out in the EEOC regulations provides further support to the fact that NSR did not regard Snyder as being' substantially limited in the pumping and circulating of blood.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Law changed since The ADAAA (effective Jan. 1, 2009) and EEOC’s 2011 revision replaced the old significant or severe restriction test with a broad, nondemanding substantial-limitation standard. For actual disability based on working, the class or broad range of jobs inquiry remains.
For the major life activity of working, § 1630.2(j)(3)(I) requires a significant restriction on performing a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs, while § 1630.2(j)(l) defines a substantial limitation as inability to perform a major life activity or significant restriction compared with the average person.
Rivera v. Pfizer Pharmaceutical LLC · filed 2006-11-30(j)(3)(I), (j)(l)
The EEOC regulations, ... however, define the major life activity of “working” and provide that the term “ ‘substantially limits’ means significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(I) (emphasis ours). ... Further, the physician’s recommendations do not meet the definition of substantial limitation set forth in the regulations which require that plaintiff either be “[u]n-able to perform a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform; or ... [significantly 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)(l) (2006).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Law changed since The ADAAA (effective Jan. 1, 2009) and EEOC’s 2011 revision replaced the old significant or severe restriction test with a broad, nondemanding substantial-limitation standard.
The regulation defines substantial limitation by asking whether a person is significantly restricted in performing a major life activity compared with the average person.
Edwards v. Creoks Mental Health Services, Inc. · filed 2007-01-25(j)(l)(ii)
While plaintiff cannot manage high levels of stress, she has not shown that she is “significantly restricted” in performing 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)(l)(ii).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Law changed since The 2011 EEOC revision removed former § 1630.2(j)(2)’s required nature, severity, duration, and long-term-impact checklist; duration may still inform the individualized assessment.
The regulation requires an impairment to substantially limit a major life activity, assessed by factors including its duration, severity, and permanent or long-term impact.
Brockman v. Snow · filed 2007-02-13(I), (j)(1)
Duration, severity, and permanent or long-term impact of the impairment are all factors used in determining whether an individual is substantially limited in a major life activity. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(I). ... It is not enough that her ability to walk be limited--it must be substantially limited. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Section 1630.2(j)(1) defines a substantially limiting impairment by comparing the person's condition, manner, and duration of performing a major life activity with those of the average person.
Ashton v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. · filed 2007-02-27(j)(1)
Under the ADA, Ashton is “disabled”only if her impairment substantially limits a major life activity. An impairment is “substantially limiting” if the person “is significantly restricted as to the condition(s), manner, and duration under which she can perform a major life activity as compared to the condition(s), manner, and duration under which an average person in the general population can perform the same major life activity.” ... Even assuming in Ashton’s favor that her impairment lasted from June through December 2002, she cannot show that her ability to think was substantially limited on a long-term basis rather than being of limited duration.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
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.
A substantial limitation requires a significant restriction in the condition, manner, or duration of performing a major life activity, and restrictions from one particular job do not establish a substantial limitation in working.
Coleman v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Kan. · filed 2007-05-16(j)(1)(ii)
Nonetheless, the plaintiffs own claims belie this contention. Plaintiff contends at multiple points in her brief that she sought out more clerical work that would require less keying and that she felt better working in other departments that did not require so much keying. ... Even if plaintiff could point the Court to such restrictions, they would be insufficient because they do not address whether plaintiff would be restricted from performing any job other than a data capture employee.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Law changed since 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.
Section 1630.2(j) treats an impairment as substantially limiting based on its nature, severity, duration, and permanent or long-term impact, so temporary impairments with little lasting impact generally do not qualify.
Burns v. Air Liquide America, L.P. · filed 2007-05-22(j)
Relevant factors in determining whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity include: the nature and severity of the impairment, its duration, and its permanent or long-term impact. ... As such, “[tjemporary, non-chronic impairments of short duration, with little or no long term or permanent impact, are usually not disabilities.”Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Section 1630.2(j)(1) measures substantial limitation against the average person in the general population, while § 1630.2(j)(3)(i)'s comparable-training standard applies only to working, not learning.
Singh v. George Washington University School of Medicine & Health Sciences · filed 2007-12-04(j)(1)(i)-(ii), (j)(3)(i), (i)
The EEOC describes an individual as substantially limited if she is either “[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 [the major life activity] as compared to the condition, manner, or duration under which the average person in the general population can perform that same major life activity.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(i)-(ii). ... In contrast, the district court relied on and extended the EEOC’s separate definition of substantial limitation in the purported major life activity of working,1 a definition that compares individuals to “the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities” in their ability “to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i). The district court found this “more specific” comparison to be “more applicable,” and it therefore read the EEOC’s regulations to require comparisons “to people of similar age and educational background” in the activity of learning as well. 368 F. Supp. 2d at 66. This was a misreading of the regulations. The EEOC includes learning among a list of many major life activities, 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i), and applies the comparable-training standard only to working.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Law changed since The ADAAA (effective Jan. 1, 2009) and EEOC’s 2011 revision replaced the old significant or severe restriction test with a broad, nondemanding substantial-limitation standard. For actual disability based on working, the class or broad range of jobs inquiry remains.
The regulation treats an impairment as substantially limiting a major life activity when it significantly restricts its condition, manner, or duration compared with the average person; for working, the impairment must disqualify the person from a particular class or broad range of jobs, with the impairment’s nature, severity, duration, and long-term impact considered.
Gaines v. New York City Transit Authority · filed 2007-12-18(j)(1)(i), (j)(2), (j)(3)(i)
A limitation is substantial if a person is “significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under which [he] 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.” ... Courts consider the nature and severity of the impairment, the impairment’s duration, and the permanent or long-term impact resulting from the impairment. ... To demonstrate that he is substantially limited in the major life activity of working, plaintiff must show that his impairment disqualifies him from either a particular class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes, as compared to a non-impaired person of similar training, skill, and experience. ... Only if plaintiff is substantially limited in his ability to work generally is he disabled under the ADA.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
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 directs courts to assess the nature, severity, duration, and long-term impact of an impairment when deciding whether it substantially limits a major life activity; short-term, non-chronic impairments generally do not qualify, and caring for oneself may comprise several activities.
Storey, Shirley v. City of Chicago · filed 2008-02-13(j)(2)(i), (i)
We therefore turn to whether Storey’s other evidence demonstrates that her impairments substantially limited a major life activity. To make this determination, we look to “the nature and severity of the impairment, the duration and expected duration of the impairment and the permanent or long term impact or the expected permanent or long term impact of or resulting from the impairment.” Kampmier, 472 F.3d at 937; see also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(2)(i)-(iii). ... “[T]emporary, non-chronic impairments of short duration, with little or no long term or permanent impact, are usually not disabilities.” 29 C.F.R. Pt. 1630, App., § 1630.2(j).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Law changed since Same change as noted above.
Section 1630.2(j)(2) identifies the nature and severity, duration or expected duration, and long-term impact of an impairment as factors for deciding whether it substantially limits a major life activity.
Verna v. Public Health Trust of Miami-Dade County · filed 2008-02-26(j)(2)
To qualify as a disabled person, a person must either be completely unable to perform the activity, or significantly restricted as compared to an average person. ... Factors considered to determine if a person is substantially limited include: (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 or resulting from the impairment. ... Taking Plaintiff at her word, she has failed to show that her medical condition substantially impacted a major life activity; these minor interferences in the major life activity of walking and/or working do not qualify as a disability.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
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)-(ii) treats an impairment as substantially limiting a major life activity when it makes a person unable to perform it or significantly restricts the conditions, manner, or duration of performance.
Nicholson v. West Penn Allegheny Health System · filed 2008-10-21(j)(1)(i)-(ii), (i)
A condition is a substantial limitation on a major life activity if it renders the person incapable of performing, or “[s]ignificantly restrict[s] as to the condition, manner or duration under which an individual can perform,” a major life activity “that the average person in the general population can perform.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(i)-(ii).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Section 1630.2(j)(1)(ii) requires comparing the condition, manner, or duration of a person's major-life-activity performance with that of the average person in the general population to determine whether the activity is substantially limited.
Lopez-Baca v. Geren · filed 2008-11-03(j)(1)(ii)
To establish a substantial limitation in the major life activity of breathing, a plaintiff must show that his condition “significantly restricted [him] as to the condition, manner or duration under which [he could breathe] as compared to the condition, manner, or duration under which the average person in the general population can [breathe].” ... Plaintiffs only other breathing-related contention — that he often suffers from shortness of breath which requires him to try to catch his breath — is insufficient to establish a significant restriction as compared to the average person in the general population. ... Accordingly, Plaintiffs claim that he is substantially limited in the major life activity of breathing fails.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Law changed since Same change as noted above.
An impairment substantially limits a major life activity when it significantly restricts the condition, manner, and duration in which the person can perform it compared with an average person in the general population.
Maslanka v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc. · filed 2008-12-23(j)(1)(ii)
An impairment is “substantially limiting” if the person “is significantly restricted as to the condition, manner, and duration under which [he] can perform a major life activity as compared to the condition, manner, and duration under which an average person in the general population can perform that same major life activity.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Under § 1630.2(j)(2), the duration or expected duration of an impairment is a factor in deciding whether it substantially limits a major life activity.
Mascioli v. Arby's Restaurant Group, Inc. · filed 2009-03-16(j)(2)(ii)
The duration of the limitation is directly relevant to the second factor listed in 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(2), and, in this situation, the short duration weighs heavily against it being a substantial limitation.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Section 1630.2(j) defines “substantially limits” by comparison with the average person's ability and directs consideration of the impairment's nature, severity, duration, and effect on a class or broad range of jobs.
Alexander v. QVC DISTRIBUTION CENTER · filed 2009-12-29(j)(1), (j)(2), (j)(3)(ii)(A)
Those guidelines provide that the term “substantially limits” means: “(i) [ujnable 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 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 activity.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1). Factors to be considered in evaluating whether someone is substantially limited in a major life activity also include the nature, severity, and long term impact of an impairment. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(2). ... A “class of jobs” is the job from which a claimant was disqualified, as well as all other jobs utilizing similar training, knowledge and skills within “the geographical area to which the [claimant] has reasonable access.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(ii)(A)-(B).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Section 1630.2(j)(1)(ii) defines substantial limitation by comparing a person’s restriction in performing a major life activity with the ability of the average person in the general population.
Turner v. Saloon, Ltd. · filed 2010-02-08(j)(1)(ii)
The applicable ADA regulations explain that a person is “substantially limited” in a major life activity when 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 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)(ii). This regulation adds that “an individual who, because of an impairment, can only walk for very brief periods of time would be substantially limited in the major life activity of walking.”Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Law changed since Same change as noted above.
The regulation defines “substantially limits” by reference to inability or significant restriction in performing a major life activity compared with the average person.
Lawson v. Plantation General Hospital, L.P. · filed 2010-03-30(i), (j)(2)
In conducting its analysis of whether Plaintiff is substantially limited in her major life activity of caring for herself, the Court notes that the phrase “substantially limits” means that Plaintiff is “unable to perform a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform” or is “[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(i) (1997).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Law changed since The ADAAA (effective Jan. 1, 2009) and EEOC’s 2011 revision replaced the old significant or severe restriction test with a broad, nondemanding substantial-limitation standard. For actual disability based on working, the class or broad range of jobs inquiry remains.
Section 1630.2(j) treats a person as substantially limited when an impairment prevents or significantly restricts a major life activity, while limitation in working requires significant restriction from a class or broad range of jobs rather than one specific job.
Duello v. Buchanan County Board of Supervisors · filed 2010-04-14(j)(1)(i)-(ii), (j)(3)(i)
“An individual is substantially limited in a major life activity, if he or she is “unable to perform a basic function the average person in the general population can perform, or is significantly restricted in the condition, manner, or duration under which [he or] she can perform a major life activity as compared to an average person in the general population.” ... (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(l)(i)-(ii)). “[Temporary impairments with little or no long-term impact are not disabilities.” ... In considering the anticipated duration of Duello’s impairment, six months, and the expected long-term impact of the impairment, the Court concludes that Duello’s impairment was not a disability as defined under 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(A), because it was temporary and unlikely to have a long-term impact on any major life activity. ... “In order to be regarded as disabled with respect to the major life activity of working, the employer must mistakenly believe that the [ ] impairment substantially limits the employee’s ability to work.” ... Substantial limitation of the major life activity of working requires an individual to be “ ‘significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes.’ ” ... “If an employer believes that an employee is unable to perform ‘one specific job,’ then the employee is not regarded as disabled.”Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
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, duration or expected duration, and permanent or long-term impact when deciding whether it substantially limits a major life activity.
Matarese v. Archstone Pentagon City · filed 2011-01-05(j)(2)
The factors considered when determining if a plaintiff is substantially limited in the major life activity of breathing are the nature and severity of the impairment, the duration or expected duration of the impairment, and the permanent or long-term impact of the impairment.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
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)(2) treats a person as substantially limited in a major life activity when a significant restriction is measured against the average person's ability to perform that activity.
Matarese v. ARCHSTONE PENTAGON CITY · filed 2011-05-31(j)(2)
A person is substantially limited in a major life activity when there is a significant restriction as to the condition, manner, or duration under which the person can perform the 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.’ ”Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
An impairment must substantially limit a major life activity; difficulty climbing stairs or temporary hardship and fatigue alone do not meet that threshold.
Miller v. McHugh · filed 2011-09-14(j)(1)(i)
More importantly, though, it is well settled that difficulty climbing stairs or temporary hardship and fatigue do not alone constitute a “substantial impairment” to a “major life activity.”Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
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 treats a person as substantially limited when the condition, manner, or duration of performing a major life activity is significantly restricted compared with the average person, considering the impairment's severity, duration, and long-term impact; for working, the limitation may concern a class or broad range of jobs.
Hopkins v. City of Wilmington · filed 2012-02-23(j)(1), (j)(2), (j)(3)(i)
EEOC regulations define “substantially limited,” in pertinent part, as “significantly 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 the same major life activity.” ... When evaluating whether one is substantially limited in a major life activity, courts are to take into account: ... (i) The nature and severity of the impairment; ... (ii) The duration or expected duration of the impairment; ... (iii) The permanent or long term impact, or the expected permanent or long term impact of or resulting from the impairment. ... Additionally, a person is substantially limited in the life activity of working when he can prove he is substantially limited in his ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
An impairment qualifies as a disability only if it substantially limits a major life activity compared with most people in the general population.
Risco v. McHugh · filed 2012-06-14(j)(l)(ii)
While Risco also testified that she could not lift "over 50 pounds” (FFC Tr. 61:6-9), this limitation would not constitute a substantial impairment within the meaning of the RHA. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(l)(ii) (“An impairment is a disability within the meaning of [the ADA] if it substantially limits the ability of an individual to perform a major life activity as compared to most people in the general population.”).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
An impairment is a disability only if it substantially limits a major life activity compared with most people in the general population; applying that standard, the court found Hill was not substantially limited in seeing.
Hill v. Southeastern Freight Lines, Inc. · filed 2012-07-02(j)(1)(ii)
In summary, based on Plaintiffs own testimony at his deposition, Plaintiffs eye condition does not prevent him from driving during the day, driving for short distances at night, reading, doing yard work, doing housework, or caring for himself to the same extent as an average- person in the general population. It is therefore the finding of the Court that Plaintiff is not substantially limited in the major life activity of seeing “as compared to most people in the general population.” 29 C.F.R. 1630.2(j)(1)(ii).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Law changed since The ADAAA (effective Jan. 1, 2009) and EEOC’s 2011 revision replaced the old significant or severe restriction test with a broad, nondemanding substantial-limitation standard.
The regulation defines a substantial limitation of a major life activity as either inability to perform it or significant restriction of its condition, manner, or duration compared with the average person.
VanHorn v. Hana Group, Inc. · filed 2013-10-18(j)(1)
An impairment “substantially limits” a major life activity when an individual is either unable to perform a major life activity or is “significantly 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.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(l).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
The regulation measures substantial limitation by comparing a person’s ability to perform a major life activity with most people in the general population, focusing on life activities rather than educational activities.
Moore v. Chilton County Board of Education · filed 2014-03-03(j)(l)(ii)
But the ADA’s implementing regulations focus on the effect of the impairment on the individual’s life activities, not educational activities, and permit a broad-based comparison between the ability of that individual to perform a major life activity “as compared to most people in the general population,” not most people in an educational setting. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(l)(ii). Given this regulatory definition and absent the Board’s citation to any authority to support its position, the court declines to adopt it.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
The regulation requires determining whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity by considering several factors, rather than applying a categorical rule; inability to sit for a prolonged period may qualify depending on the specific circumstances.
Parada v. Banco Industrial de Venezuela, C.A. · filed 2014-03-25(j)
Such a categorical approach also conflicts with the EEOC’s implementing regulations governing Parada’s claim, which emphasized that the determination of whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity involves several factors. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j) (1991).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Section 1630.2(j)(1)(ii) treats an impairment as substantially limiting when it substantially limits a person’s ability to perform a major life activity compared with most people in the general population, without requiring that it prevent or significantly or severely restrict the activity.
Weaving v. City of Hillsboro · filed 2014-08-15(j)(1)(ii)
The 2008 amendments to the ADA relaxed the standard for determining whether a plaintiff is substantially limited in engaging in a major life activity, but Weaving cannot satisfy even the lower standard under current law. The record does not contain substantial evidence showing that Weaving was limited in his ability to work compared to “most people in the general population.” See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
An impairment substantially limits a major life activity when it limits the person's ability compared with most people, though it need not prevent or severely restrict the activity.
French v. Idaho State · filed 2016-02-22(j)(1)(ii)
The impairment must “substantially limit[ ] the ability of an individual to perform a major life activity as compared to most people in the general population.”Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
The regulation defines when an impairment is substantially limiting and identifies the factors used to assess that limitation.
Barlatier v. Local Motion, Inc. · filed 2018-12-03(j)(1), (j)(2)
“To be substantially limiting, an impairment must cause a person to be ‘unable to perform a major life activity that an average person in the general population can perform,’ or to be significantly restricted in the performance of a particular major life activity as compared to an average person in the general population.” ... “The First Circuit has enumerated three factors to evaluate in determining “whether an individual is substantially limited in a major life activity,” which include: “(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." ... This statement is insufficient to support the conclusion that her obesity substantially limited a major life activity.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Section 1630.2(j)(ii) measures whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity by comparing the individual’s ability with that of most people in the general population.
Brown v. Belt · filed 2019-04-15(j)(ii)
To establish that impairments are substantially limiting, a plaintiff must show that the impairment “substantially limits the ability of an individual to perform a major life activity as compared to most people in the general population.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(ii).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
The regulation defines “substantially limits” by comparing a person’s ability to perform a major life activity with that of the average person in the general population.
Frogge v. Fox · filed 2019-06-10(j)(1)(ii)
The ADA defines “disability” as “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual.” “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).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Section 1630.2(j)(1)(v) says determining whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity usually does not require scientific, medical, or statistical analysis, and subsection (j)(4) directs courts to consider how the activity is performed, including extra time or effort, rather than outcomes alone.
Berger v. National Board of Medical Examiners · filed 2019-08-27(j)(1)(v), (j)(4)
Under the ADAAA, analysis of whether a person is substantially limited in a major life activity “usually will not require scientific, medical, or statistical analysis.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(v). ... In addition, under the ADA regulations, the Court must consider the condition and manner under which the individual performs the major life activity, as well as the duration of time it takes to perform such activity, in determining whether a person has a disability under the ADA: [T]he focus is on how a major life activity is substantially limited, and not on what outcomes an individual can achieve. For example, someone with a learning disability may achieve a high level of academic success, but may nevertheless be substantially limited in the major life activity of learning because of the additional time or effort he or she must spend to read, write, or learn compared to most people in the general population. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(4).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
An impairment substantially limits a major life activity only when it limits the individual's ability to perform that activity compared with most people in the general population.
WILLIAMS v. CHILDFIRST SERVICES, INC. · filed 2019-09-13(j)(ii)
Turning then to the “actual disability” prong, not every pain or “every impairment will constitute a disability.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(ii). Only those impairments that “substantially limit[] the ability of an individual to perform a major life activity as compared to most people in the general population.” Id. ... These limitations do not demonstrate that the impairment to his back and shoulder substantially limited his ability to lift “as compared to most people in the general population.”Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
To decide whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity, compare the condition, manner, and duration of the person's performance with that of most people in the general population.
Munoz v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation · filed 2019-10-09(j)(4)(ii)
In determining whether a person is substantially limited in a major life activity, “it may be useful … to consider, as compared to most people in the general population, the condition under which the individual performs the major life activity; the manner in which the individual performs the major life activity; and/or the duration of time it takes the individual to perform the major life activity, or for which the individual can perform the major life activity.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(4)(ii). ... Plaintiff has not presented evidence on which a trier of fact could base a conclusion that he had a physical impairment that substantially limited one or more of his major life activities when considering the condition, manner, and duration under which he could perform the activities when compared to most people in the general population.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
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(j) treats an impairment as substantially limiting when it significantly restricts the condition, manner, or duration of performing a major life activity compared with the average person, considering the impairment’s nature, severity, duration, and long-term impact; total inability is not required.
Bey v. City of New York · filed 2020-01-30(j)(2), (j)(1)(i), (j)(1)(ii)
Whether PFB substantially limits Plaintiffs’ ability to groom is a closer question. The EEOC sets out the following considerations to guide the inquiry: “(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). ... “Substantial limitation” does not only mean that an individual is “[u]nable to perform a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(4)(1)(i). “Substantial limitation” also contemplates situations where an individual is “[s]ignificantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under which an individual can perform a particular major life activity as compared to the condition, manner, or duration under which the average person in the general population can perform that same major life activity.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii) (emphasis added). Defendants’ contention that “substantial limitation” envisions a total restriction on performing an activity misinterprets the substantive requirements of proving a disability under the ADA.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
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, severity, duration, and lasting impact when deciding whether it substantially limits a major life activity, while § 1630.2(j)(3)(1) provides that inability to perform one particular job alone is not a substantial limitation in working.
O'Hara v. Board of Cooperative Education Services, Southern Westchester · filed 2020-03-16(j)(2), (j)(3)(1)
Under the statutory scheme and related case law, a qualifying disability “must limit a major life activity and the limitation must be substantial.” ... “Factors to consider in determining whether a major life activity is substantially limited include: the nature and severity of the impairment; its duration or expected duration; and the existence of any actual or expected permanent or long term impact.” ... However, “regulations make clear that the ‘inability to perform in a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working.’” ... Accordingly, Plaintiff’s allegations suggest that that her conditions are severe, extended in duration, and have substantially impacted her ability to work.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Law changed since Same change as noted above.
Section 1630.2(j) explains that substantial limitation is assessed by considering an impairment’s nature, severity, duration, and permanent or long-term impact.
Shields v. Credit One Bank, N.A. · filed 2020-03-17(j)
“In determining whether an individual is substantially limited in a major life activity, [the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s]guidance suggests that courts shouldconsider: (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 resulting from the impairment.”Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Subsection (j)(1)(v) generally does not require scientific, medical, or statistical analysis to establish that an impairment substantially limits a major life activity, but that rule does not establish the existence of the underlying physical or mental impairment.
Tackett v. XPO Logistics, Inc. · filed 2020-04-09(j)(1)(v)
Although Tackett is correct that generally “scientific, medical, or statistical analysis” is not needed to establish whether a major life activity is substantially limited, this evidence does not meet the threshold issue of whether Tackett had a physical or mental impairment. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(v); See Neely v. Benchmark Family Services, 640 Fed. Appx. 429, 434 (6th Cir. 2016) (A plaintiff’s “own experience in determining whether a major life activity is affected, [not establishing a disability], is sufficient.”)Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
An impairment is substantially limiting when it substantially limits a major life activity compared with most people in the general population; it need not prevent or significantly or severely restrict that activity.
Pritchard v. Florida High School Athletic Association, Inc. · filed 2020-06-30(j)(1)(ii)
An impairment is a disability within the meaning of the ADA if it “substantially limits the ability of an individual to perform a major life activity as compared to most people in the general population.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii). “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.”Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Section 1630.2(j)(4)(ii) directs courts assessing whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity to consider the difficulty, effort, or time required for that activity and how the impairment affects a major bodily function.
Rinehart v. Weitzell · filed 2020-07-02(j)(4)(ii)
Whether a disability “substantially limits” an activity or function is a fact-specific inquiry. We may consider “the difficulty, effort, or time required to perform a major life activity . . . and/or they way an impairment affects the operation of a major bodily function.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(4)(ii).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Section 1630.2(i)(2) says that whether an activity is a major life activity is not judged by its central importance to daily life and that “major” is not a strict standard; § 1630.2(j)(ii) compares substantial limitation with most people in the general population.
Hentze v. CSX TRANSPORTATION INC. · filed 2020-08-07(i)(2), (j)(ii)
“[w]hether an activity is a ‘major life activity’ is not determined by reference to whether it is of ‘central importance to daily life.’” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i)(2). In short, after the enactment of the ADAAA, “[i]n determining other examples of major life activities, the term ‘major’ shall not be interpreted strictly to create a demanding standard for disability.” ... To establish a “substantial limitation” in performing a particular activity, Hentze must show that he is substantially limited in regard to that activity as compared to most people in the general population. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(ii).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Section 1630.2(j) requires an impairment to substantially limit a major life activity to qualify as a disability; sporadic allergy symptoms triggered only by exposure to strong odors, without sufficient medical evidence that the limitation was substantial, did not satisfy that standard here.
Whitesell v. FMS Financial Management Services, LLC · filed 2020-05-28(j)
After review of the arguments and the above cases, the Court assumes that Plaintiff’s impairment affects her breathing. It does not find, however, that Plaintiff’s impairment substantially limits her breathing as that term is defined and interpreted under the ADA. Defendant has carried its burden to show a lack of substantial limitation of Plaintiff’s major life activities, pointing to the fact that she experiences the allergy symptoms only when she is exposed to strong odors and, therefore, only sporadically, and identifying cases in which such occasional allergic reactions have been found to not substantially limit a major life activity for purposes of the ADA. On the other hand, Plaintiff, unlike the plaintiffs in the cases she cites, has not come forward to carry her resulting burden with sufficient evidence, backed by medical support, that her condition is not merely transient or that the limitation it causes is substantial.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Section 1630.2(j)(ii) treats an impairment as substantially limiting when it limits a person's ability to perform a major life activity compared with most people in the general population, even if it does not prevent or significantly or severely restrict that activity.
Herbowy-Hubalek v. Lithia of Yorkville - 3, LLC · filed 2021-12-20(j)(ii)
The regulations implementing the ADA provide that “[a]n impairment is a disability within the meaning of this section if it substantially limits the ability of an individual to perform a major life activity as compared to most people in the general population. 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.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(ii). ... Recognizing that the Defendant’s move to dismiss a pleading and that no evidence has yet been collected, the Court finds that Plaintiff has alleged facts sufficient to make plausible that her Barrett’s disease substantially limits a major life activity. ... In light of the broadening of the definition of disability provided by the Congress, the Court concludes that collecting evidence is necessary before a fact-finder can determine whether Plaintiff actually suffers from a disability.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
The regulation treats substantial limitation as a non-demanding, individualized comparison with most people in the general population, using factors such as duration, effort, and pain, and defines essential functions as fundamental rather than marginal job duties.
Green v. The TJX Companies, Inc. · filed 2022-01-31(j)(1)(i), (j)(1)(ii), (j)(4)(ii), and (n)(1)
“The “substantiality” determination requires an individualized assessment that compares a plaintiff’s alleged limitations to those faced by most people in the general population. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii), (iv). In doing so, it is often helpful to consider “the difficulty, effort, or time required to perform [the] major life activity; pain experienced when performing [it]; the length of time [it] can be performed; and/or the way an impairment affects the operation of a major bodily function.” Id. § 1630.2(j)(4)(ii). ... As currently alleged, Ms. Green’s complaint does not include any details that would support an inference that her limitation was substantial. Most people would experience discomfort if required to stand for long periods. She does not allege how long she can stand for before she needs to rest. ... She does not allege that she experienced severe pain after standing for long periods. And she does not allege that she required extended breaks to recuperate. Ms. Green must do more to indicate that she suffers from a disability and not a common affliction.”Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity does not require scientific, medical, or statistical analysis.
Dr. Wendi H. Anderson v. The School Board of Gloucester County, Virginia · filed 2022-03-10(G)(1)
Further, whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity “will not require scientific, medical, or statistical analysis.” ... The exclusion of Dr. Vinitsky’s report and testimony does not completely doom Plaintiff's claim to a disability, as Defendant argues. Regardless of whether MCS presents a viable medical diagnosis, Plaintiff still presents evidence that, if credited by the jury, her sensitivity to scents causes reactions that substantially limit her ability to perform major life activities. ... viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court finds that the question of Plaintiff's disability presents a genuine dispute of material fact for the jury to decide.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Section 1630.2(j)(1)(ii) defines a substantially limiting impairment as one that substantially limits an individual's ability to perform a major life activity compared with most people in the general population, without requiring prevention or severe restriction.
Cronkite v. Oklahoma Attorney General · filed 2022-05-02(j)(1)(ii)
To qualify as “substantially limiting” under step three, the impairment must “substantially limit[] the ability of an individual to perform a major life activity as compared to most people in the general population.”Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
An impairment is substantially limiting when it limits an individual's ability to perform a major life activity compared with most people in the general population, and this standard is construed broadly in favor of expansive coverage.
Golden v. City of Longview · filed 2022-07-11(j)(1)(ii), (j)(1)(i)
To be substantial, an impairment must limit the ability of an individual to perform a major life activity as compared to most people in the general population. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii). This standard is to be “construed broadly in favor of expansive coverage.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(i). ... The court finds that Mr. Golden’s declaration is sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact with respect to disability.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Section 1630.2(j) requires an individualized assessment of whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity.
Smith v. NaphCare Inc · filed 2022-07-28(j)
The determination of whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity requires an individualized assessment. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j). ... Although the FAC states that Jeana Rogers had a history of mental illness, there are no allegations that such mental illness substantially limited a major life activity. ... However, as alleged in the FAC, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged that Jeana Rogers mental impairments caused her to be substantially limited in a major life activity. ... Thus, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have failed to adequately allege a disability under the ADA.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
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 when an impairment substantially limits a major life activity, including inability or significant restriction compared with the average person.
Henderson v. The Waxxpot Group LLC · filed 2022-07-28(j)(1)
A condition “substantially limits” a person if she is “[u]nable to perform a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform” or if the individual is “[s]ignificantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under which an individual can perform a particular major life activity as compared to the condition, manner, or duration under which the average person in the general population can perform that same major life activity.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1). “The definition of disability” under the ADA “shall be construed in favor of broad coverage.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(4)(A). A plaintiff’s testimony along with medical records may establish that she is disabled under the ADA. See Hostettler v. Coll. of Wooster, 895 F.3d 844, 854 (6th Cir. 2018) (finding that plaintiff’s self-reported symptoms and limitations and her doctor reports of her symptoms were “enough for her to be considered an individual with a disability under the ADA.”). Therefore, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to precluded evidence or arguments that Plaintiff is disabled.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Section 1630.2(j)(1) defines a substantial limitation by comparing an individual's ability to perform a major life activity with that of the average person in the general population, including the condition, manner, or duration of performance.
BARSODY v. CLEARFIELD AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT · filed 2022-09-12(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.”Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Section 1630.2(j)(ii) defines substantial limitation by comparing an individual's ability to perform a major life activity with the ability of most people in the general population.
Flint 248501 v. Eicher · filed 2023-03-28(j)(ii)
This impairment must “substantially limi[t] the ability of an individual to perform a major life activity as compared to most people in the general population.”Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Section 1630.2(j)(4)(i) treats a physical impairment as substantially limiting when it significantly restricts the condition, manner, or duration of performing a major life activity compared with most people in the general population.
Brunner v. GN Bank · filed 2023-03-13(j)(4)(i)
A physical impairment substantially limits a major life activity if it significantly restricts the condition, manner, or duration in which the plaintiff can perform a major life activity as compared to most people in the general population. ... Viewing these facts in the light most favorable to Brunner, a reasonable jury could find that Brunner’s migraines and neurological condition substantially limited his ability to care for himself or work. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(4)(i)–(ii); Dutton v. Johnson Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Com’rs, 859 F. Supp. 498, 506 (D. Kan. 1994); see also Harrington v. Hawker Beechcraft Corp., No. 07-1068, 2008 WL 11378896, at *8 (D. Kan. Dec. 9, 2008) (citing Dutton).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
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 assessing whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity to consider its nature and severity, duration or expected duration, and permanent or long-term impact.
JOHNSON v. EAST ORANGE VA MEDICAL CENTER · filed 2023-04-04(j)(2)
To determine whether a plaintiff “is affected by a disability that substantially limits a major life activity, a court should 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 resulting from the impairment.’” Gallagher v. Sunrise Assisted Living, 268 F. Supp. 2d 436, 441 (E.D. Pa. 2003) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(2)). Critically, “[a]ny determination as to whether an individual is disabled should be made in reference to any measures that mitigate the individual’s impairment.” Id. (citing Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 482-83 (2002)). Plaintiff, in this instance, has alleged that she suffers from allergies and asthma, which this Court accepts as true. Plaintiff has detailed the steps her employer took to mitigate the issue—specifically, reassigning a co-worker and replacing carpeting in the facility. (D.E. 1 ¶¶ 16, 20. 36.) Plaintiff, however, has not presented any measures she took to mitigate the effects of the allergies and asthma. The facts as alleged in the Amended Complaint are vague and devoid of pertinent details concerning the “nature and severity of the impairment,” “the duration or expected duration of the impairment,” and “the impact resulting from the impairment.” Gallagher, 268 F. Supp. 2d at 441 (finding that allergies and “unspecified breathing issues” are not viable ADA disabilities). This Court, therefore, is unable to confirm that Plaintiff’s infirmities actually constitute disabilities.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Section 1630.2(j) requires an individualized assessment of whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity, compared with most people in the general population, although “substantially limits” is not a demanding standard.
Carlton v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. · filed 2023-09-29(j)(1)(i), (j)(1)(ii), and (j)(1)(iv)
The Court will not infer that “without [anti-seizure medication], Carlton’s alleged seizure disorder would substantially limit . . . the operation of his neurological function.” Filing 10 at 19. Carlton does not allege any facts from which one could infer that his seizure disorder substantially limits his neurological function “as compared to most people in the general population.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii). Carlton alleges that his “doctors prescribed [him] anti-seizure medication [and] Carlton has taken anti-seizure medicine since that time . . . and has not experienced another seizure.” Filing 1 at 8 (¶¶ 36–37). Presumably, Carlton wants the Court to infer that any unmedicated seizure disorder would substantially limit the operation of a person’s neurological function, but he does not allege that the anti-seizure medication is a “mitigating measure”—i.e., that Carlton would have more seizures without the medication. Cf. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(4)(E). Indeed, Carlton asserts that he “had no prior history of seizures before these two seizures.” Filing 1 at 8 (¶ 37). It would be untenable for the Court to infer that Carlton would have had more seizures but for taking anti-seizure medicine when Carlton has only ever had two seizures and does not allege that he was diagnosed with a seizure disorder. Carlton has simply failed to plead sufficient facts to allow the Court to make the required “individualized assessment” to determine “whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(iv).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Section 1630.2(j)(1)(ii) treats an impairment as a disability when it substantially limits a person’s ability to perform a major life activity compared with most people in the general population.
Beal v. Chicago Transit Authority · filed 2023-10-04(j)(1)(ii)
An impairment is a disability if it substantially limits a person’s ability to “perform a major life activity as compared to most people in the general population.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
An impairment must substantially limit an individual’s major life activity compared with most people in the general population, and whether it does requires an individualized assessment.
Brundy v. Union Pacific Railroad Co. · filed 2023-10-11(j)(1)(ii) and (iv)
Brundy also does not allege in the Complaint that his eyesight is inferior or would be inferior without injections “as compared to most people in the general population.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii). On a motion to dismiss, the Court is not permitted to perform independent research about neovascularization to determine whether Brundy’s condition could plausibly limit his eyesight when Brundy does not allege that himself. The Court concludes that Brundy has failed to plead sufficient facts to allow the Court to make the required “individualized assessment” to determine “whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity.” Id. § 1630.2(j)(1)(iv).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Section 1630.2(j)(1)(i) provides that the substantial-limitation standard for determining disability is not meant to be demanding, so episodic stuttering may substantially limit communication when active.
RIVERA v. PRA HEALTH SCIENCES · filed 2023-10-24(j)(1)(i)
This standard “is not meant to be . . . demanding.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(i). ... A stutter has been recognized a possible impairment that can affect a major life activity. See Medvic v. Compass Sign Co., LLC, No. 10-cv-5222, 2011 WL 3513499, at *7 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 10, 2011) (recognizing that a stutter, even one that is episodic, can be a disability). ... As I find evidence from which a jury could conclude that when Plaintiff’s stutter is active, it substantially limits her ability to communicate, I will deny summary judgment on this ground.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Law changed since The ADAAA (effective Jan. 1, 2009) and EEOC’s 2011 revision replaced the old significant or severe restriction test with a broad, nondemanding substantial-limitation standard. For actual disability based on working, the class or broad range of jobs inquiry remains.
Section 1630.2(j)(3)(i) treats a substantial limitation on working as a significant restriction in performing a class or broad range of jobs, so inability to perform one particular job is insufficient.
Byfield v. New York City Department of Education (NYCDOE) · filed 2023-12-05(j)(3)(i)
As relevant here, in evaluating a claimed impartment to the major life activity of working, “[t]he term substantially limits means significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities.” Muller v. Costello, 187 F.3d 298, 312 (2d Cir. 1999) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i)). ... Since the position of project manager at the DOE constitutes a single, particular job, and since a limitation on a single job cannot constitute a substantial limitation of the major life activity of working, Plaintiff is not “disabled” within the meaning of the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act. See Woolf, 949 F.3d at 94 (finding that because the plaintiff did not attempt to show that his work-induced impairment “substantially limited his ability to work in a class or broad range of jobs,” “no reasonable factfinder could conclude that [plaintiff] ha[d] a ‘disability’ within the meaning of the ADA”). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s failure to accommodate claims under these two statutes are dismissed.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
An impairment is a disability only if it substantially limits a major life activity compared with most people in the general population.
Philbert v. New York City Department Of Education · filed 2024-02-23(j)(1)(ii)
“An impairment is a disability . . . if it substantially limits the ability of an individual to perform a major life activity as compared to most people in the general population.” ... “Here, as in Muller, a reasonable jury could not find that Plaintiff suffers from a substantial limitation on the major activity of working, because she is capable of working in numerous similar jobs.”Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Section 1630.2(j)(1)(ii) measures substantial limitation against most people in the general population and does not require an impairment to prevent or significantly or severely restrict a major life activity.
Innes v. County of Warren · filed 2024-02-29(j)(1)(ii)
“An impairment qualifies as a disability “if it substantially limits the ability of an individual to perform a major life activity as compared to most people in the general population”; at the same time, “[a]n impairment need not prevent, or significantly or severely restrict, the individual from performing a major life activity in order to be considered substantially limiting.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii). ... However, CMC Defendants are correct that Plaintiff has not met her burden at this stage. ... The Court therefore concludes that the Amended Complaint fails to allege facts that allow a plausible inference that Plaintiff is substantially limited in the major life activity of breathing.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
An impairment need not prevent or significantly or severely restrict a major life activity to be substantially limiting, but the allegations must plausibly show a substantial limitation compared with most people in the general population.
Perez v. New York Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center · filed 2024-04-08(j)(1)(ii)
To constitute a disability under the ADA, an impairment must “‘substantially limit[] the ability of an individual to perform a major life activity as compared to most people in the general population . . . .’” ... “[a]n impairment need not prevent, or significantly or severely restrict, the individual from performing a major life activity in order to be considered substantially limiting.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii). ... This is not a demanding standard, and I construe the term “substantially limits” broadly, in favor of coverage under the ADA. ... Plaintiff has failed to plausibly allege that her reactions to the flu shot and her family history of reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine substantially limit her ability to work, and thus, those reactions are not a qualifying disability under the statute. The Complaint contains no allegations about the frequency, severity or duration of Plaintiff’s allergic reaction, nor does it demonstrate how the allergy impacts, let alone substantially impairs, her ability to work.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
An impairment can be substantially limiting even if it does not prevent or significantly or severely restrict performance of a major life activity.
Tomlinson v. City of Portland · filed 2024-07-24(j)(1)(i)
Nonetheless, “[a]n impairment need not prevent, or significantly or severely restrict, the individual from performing a major life activity in order to be considered substantially limiting.”Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
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)(i) treats a major life activity as substantially limited when a person cannot perform it like the average person in the general population or faces significant restrictions on its condition, manner, or duration.
Andrews v. Tri Star Sports & Entm't Grp. · filed 2024-08-21(j)(i)
A major life activity is “substantially limited” when an individual cannot perform that activity as an average person in the general population could perform it, or if she faces significant restrictions in the condition, manner, or duration under which she can perform the activity. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(i)–(ii); see also Morrissey v. Laurel Health Care Co., 946 F.3d 292, 299 (6th Cir. 2019).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Law changed since Same change as noted above.
The regulation treats a major life activity as substantially limited when a person cannot perform it or is significantly restricted in its condition, manner, or duration compared with the average person.
LISHEGO v. TRI STAR MOTORS, INC. · filed 2025-03-10(j)(1)
“A major life activity is substantially limited if an individual is unable to perform it or is significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under which it is performed, as compared to an average person in the general population.” Sulima v. Tobyhanna Army Depot, 602 F.3d 177, 198 (3d Cir. 2010) (cleaned up) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)). Mr. Lishego’s allegations that his colon cancer diagnosis caused his high blood pressure to spike (ECF 1, ¶ 10), led to his doctor taking him off work for a few days (Id. at ¶ 9), and caused him to take leave, plausibly establish at this stage that his cancer substantially limited a major life activity, e.g., he was unable to do work or significantly restricted as to his ability to work. These facts and reasonable inferences plausibly allege an actual disability.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
The regulation defines a physical impairment as a physiological disorder or condition affecting one or more body systems, and treats an impairment as substantially limiting when it limits a major life activity compared with most people in the general population without requiring prevention or severe restriction.
Love v. Wayfair LLC · filed 2025-07-08(h)(1), (j)(1)(ii)
A physical impairment includes “[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). ... The ADA’s implementing regulations state that an impairment constitutes a disability if it “substantially limits the ability of an individual to perform a major life activity as compared to most people in the general population.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii). The regulations provide that “[a]n impairment need not prevent, or significantly or severely restrict, the individual from performing a major life activity in order to be considered substantially limiting.”11 Id. ... These records do not demonstrate that Love’s alleged concussion and resulting headaches “substantially limit[ed] [his] ability to [work, sleep, think] as compared to most people in the general population.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii).Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
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 nature and severity of an impairment, its duration or expected duration, and its permanent or long-term impact when determining whether it substantially limits a major life activity.
Warren v. Heartland Homeowners Association · filed 2025-08-26(j)(2)
Under the applicable regulations, there are three factors to consider in determining whether an individual is substantially limited in a major life activity: “(i) The nature and severity of the impairment; (ii) the duration or expected duration of the impairment; and (iii) The permanent or long-term impact, or the expected permanent or long term impact of or resulting from the impairment.” Sanders v. Arneson Prods., Inc., 91 F.3d 1351, 1354 (9th Cir. 1996)(citing 29 CFR § 1630.2(j)(2). ... She also does not discuss the nature and severity of any impairment, the duration, or whether the impairment is permanent. See Sanders., 91 F.3d at 1354.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
An impairment qualifies as a disability when it substantially limits an individual's ability to perform a major life activity compared with most people in the general population.
Montgomery v. McDonough · filed 2025-11-19(j)(1)(ii)
“An impairment is a disability within the meaning of this section if it substantially limits the ability of an individual to perform a major life activity as compared to most people in the general population.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii). ... Based on this record, the Court cannot say that no reasonable jury could conclude that Ms. Montgomery’s hearing impairment substantially limits her ability to hear as compared to the general population. Ms. Montgomery having to turn her head or body in order to hear is analogous to a monocular individual having to turn his head to see due to a diminished visual field. ... This record evidence creates a dispute of material fact as to whether Ms. Montgomery’s hearing loss is substantial and precludes summary judgment for Defendant on this issue.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Section 1630.2 treats substantial limitation as a comparison of the plaintiff’s bodily-function operation with the general population and requires an individualized assessment; a diagnosis alone is insufficient.
Harris · filed 2025-12-11(j)(1)(ii), (j)(1)(iv)
“‘[T]o determine whether a bodily function is limited to the degree requiring protection under the ADA (i.e., ‘substantially’ limited), courts generally ask how well the plaintiff's major bodily function operates ‘as compared to the general population.’” McGonegle v. Select Comfort Retail Corp., No. 1:19-cv-442, 2021 WL 229038, at *6 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 22, 2021) (Cole, J.) (citing Darby v. Childvine, Inc., 964 F.3d 440, 445 (6th Cir. 2020) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii))). ... In other words, a diagnosis alone will not suffice. “The determination of whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity requires an individualized assessment.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(iv); ... “That assessment as to Harris reverts exclusively to her doctor’s diagnosis, period, which merely recommended short-term, non-invasive treatment.”Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
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.
An impairment substantially limits a major life activity only when it makes a person completely unable to perform it or significantly restricts its duration, manner, or condition compared with the average person.
Alex v. Housing Authority of the City of Luling, Texas · filed 2026-03-26
“An impairment substantially limits a major life activity if it makes an individual completely unable to perform the activity or if it ‘significantly restricts the duration, manner, or condition under which an individual can perform a particular major life activity as compared to the average person in the general population’s ability to perform that same major life activity.’” Carter, 255 Fed. Appx. at 830 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2). ... Alex’s testimony that her ADHD affected her work by making her “tired” and that everything was therefore “disorganized” is not enough to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether her ADHD substantially limited her major life activity of sleeping. ... Alex’s statements that her “sleep issue” was that she “was tired” and that “everything was kind of just disorganized” do not provide any of the requisite details about the restrictions that her ADHD caused with respect to her sleep or any other major life activity, such as the duration, manner, or condition under which those activities are significantly restricted, to allow a factfinder to reasonably find that she has an actionable disability.Read the full opinion on CourtListener →
Notes 2851–3000 of 4,244, oldest cases first.
Which of these rulings fit your facts?
Describe your situation under 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2. Ezel checks it against the cases on this page and answers with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace