29 C.F.R. § 1630.2

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

When working is the major life activity, substantial limitation means significant restriction in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes.

Chandler v. AMR American Eagle Airline · filed 2003-03-14(j)(3)(i)

When work itself is identified as the qualifying major life activity, the term “substantially limits” has been specifically interpreted to mean “significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

To be substantially limited in working, an individual must show a significant restriction in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes compared with a person of comparable training, skills, and abilities.

Henderson v. International Union · filed 2003-06-06(j)(3)(i)

To demonstrate that an impairment substantially limits the major life activity of working, an individual must show significant restriction “in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i). “Plaintiff must produce evidence that her overall employment opportunities have been significantly restricted.” ... Here, plaintiff has presented no evidence showing a significant restriction in her ability to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes. ... Plaintiff has failed to come forward with any evidence that her restrictions preclude her from performing any particular job inside or outside of the GM assembly plant.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(j)(3)(i) requires a person claiming substantial limitation in working to show that the impairment prevents performance of an entire class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes.

Lileikis v. SBC Ameritech, Inc. · filed 2003-12-15(j)(3)(i)

However, in order to establish a claim that she is substantially impaired because of her inability to work, she must prove that she cannot perform either an entire class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Moreno v. Brownlee · filed 2004-01-07(j)(3)(i)

The term “substantially limits,” means being significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills, and abilities. Id. (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i)). The inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working. Id.

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.

To show that working is substantially limited, a claimant must provide evidence about the accessible geographic area, including the jobs foreclosed by the impairment and the claimant's training, skills, and abilities.

Sullivan v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc. · filed 2004-02-13(j)(3)(ii)(A)

This demonstration generally requires the introduction of evidence on the "accessible geographic area, the numbers and types of jobs in the area foreclosed due to the impairment, and the types of training, skills, and abilities required by the jobs." Bailey, 306 F.3d at 1168 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(ii)(A)-(C)).

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

Section 1630.2(j)(3)(i) treats a person as substantially limited in working only when significantly restricted from performing a class or broad range of jobs; inability to perform one particular job is insufficient.

Windly v. Hightower Oil Co Inc · filed 2004-02-27(j)(3)(i)

The major life activity involved in this case is the activity of working. A person is substantially limited (i.e., disabled) with respect to the activity of working when that person is significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities. The inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i) (2003); see also Sutton v. United Air Lines, 527 U.S. 471, 491 (1999) (citing regulations and explaining that the phrase “substantially limits” means, “at a minimum, that [a person is] unable to work in a broad class of jobs”).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For the major life activity of working, a substantial limitation requires inability or significant restriction compared with the average person; being unable to perform only a few specialized jobs is insufficient.

Siederbaum v. City of New York · filed 2004-03-23(j)(l)(i), (j)(3)(i)-(ii)

In order to “substantially limit” a major life activity, the disability must either (1) cause the plaintiff to be unable to perform a major life activity that an average person in the general population could perform; or (2) significantly restrict as to the condition, manner or duration under which the plaintiff 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)(l)(i)-(ii). ... The plaintiff has not sufficiently established that the Transit Authority regarded him as unable to perform a broad range of jobs. ... The evidence in the record establishés that the plaintiff was regarded, at most, as unable to perform only four specialized jobs that involved safety-sensitive positions with limited direct supervision and in which the plaintiff would have direct responsibility for the safety of scores of passengers.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The regulation defines substantial limitation in working as a significant restriction in performing a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs compared with an average person having comparable training, skills, and abilities.

Merit v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority · filed 2004-04-30(j)(3)(i)

An individual is substantially limited in working if the individual is “significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(j)(3)(i) means that being unable to perform only one particular job is not a substantial limitation on the major life activity of working; the limitation must significantly restrict the ability to perform a class or broad range of jobs.

Mohr v. Hoover Co. · filed 2004-05-14(j)(3)(i)

The only specific job that Hoover apparently regarded Mohr as unqualified to perform was that of forklift operator, who functioned as a high rider. This is a far cry from being “significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes.” Indeed, the record here shows only that she is unable “to perform a single, particular job,” which under the Commission’s definition “does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For the major life activity of working, § 1630.2(j)(3)(i) requires a significant restriction from a class or broad range of jobs; inability to perform one particular job is insufficient.

Burrell v. Cummins Great Plains, Inc. · filed 2004-07-07(j)(3)(i)

“[T]he EEOC uses a specialized definition of the term ‘substantially limits’ when referring to the major life activity of working: ‘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.’ ” ... Here, Burrell does not allege that his impairment substantially limits his ability to work, nor does the record reflect such an inability. Burrell has consistently maintained employment and in fact insists he is able to return to his position at Cummins but for Cummins’ unreasonable requirement. “[T]to be regarded as substantially limited in the major life activity of working, one must be regarded as precluded from more than a particular job.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Garrett v. Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama · filed 2005-01-13(j)(3)(i)

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). Thus, an impairment must preclude-or at least be perceived to preclude-an individual from more than one type of job, even if the job foreclosed is the individual’s job of choice. ... Garrett has not presented evidence that she could not perform a broad range of jobs after her course of treatment. To the contrary, she did perform a job with UAB after treatment.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(j)(3)(i) treats a substantial limitation in working as a significant restriction on performing a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes compared with a similarly trained person.

Kupstas v. City of Greenwood · filed 2005-02-15(j)(3)(i)

In the context of working, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has interpreted “substantially limits” to mean “significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The regulation treats working as substantially limited only when an impairment significantly restricts the ability to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes; inability to perform one particular job is insufficient.

Olds v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · filed 2005-04-01(j)(3)(i)

A plaintiff who claims that he is disabled because a condition substantially limits his ability to engage in the “major life activity” of working must show that he is “significantly restricted in [his] ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person with comparable training, skills and abilities.” McKay, 110 F.3d at 371. (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i)). Olds accordingly can survive summary judgment if he can demonstrate that he was subject to any one of these three conditions and that he was restricted in his ability to work in a “class of jobs” or a “broad range of jobs in various classes.” Id. However, the “inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(j)(3)(I) measures substantial limitation in working by whether a person is significantly restricted from a class or broad range of jobs compared with an average person with comparable training, skills, and abilities.

Greenberg v. New York City Transit Authority · filed 2004-09-27(j)(3)(I)

The fact that defendant argues that, following his termination, plaintiff worked in retail sales at Home Depot (Def. Mem. of Law in Support 17) does nothing to refute the fact that defendant may have regarded him as being “significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(I).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The regulation treats a person as substantially limited in working when an impairment significantly restricts the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes.

Rogers v. Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement & Power District · filed 2004-12-21(j)(3)(i)

Rogers has not raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether his injury “significantly restrict[s][his] ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(j)(1)(i) defines a substantial limitation by whether a person is unable to perform or significantly restricted in performing a major life activity, while § 1630.2(j)(3)(i) says inability to perform one particular job is not a substantial limitation in working.

Wenzel v. Missouri-American Water Company · filed 2005-04-20(j)(1)(i), (j)(3)(i)

“The term “substantially limited” means “unable to perform” or “significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under which” of performing a major life activity. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(l)(i)-(ii). ... “The inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i).”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Roberts v. Rayonier, Inc. · filed 2005-06-16(j)(3)

See 29 CFR § 1630.2(j)(3) (2001) (“With respect to the major life activity of working . . . [t]he term substantially limits means significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities.”) ... Because the major life activity identified by Roberts is work, he is required to prove that he is significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For the major life activity of working, substantial limitation requires significant restriction from a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes, including at least the claimant’s previous job.

Casey v. Kwik Trip, Inc. · filed 2004-10-19(j)(3)(i), (j)(3)(ii)(A)

Casey contends that her impairments substantially restrict her ability to perform a “broad range of jobs in various classes” in the job market in Northwest Wisconsin: assembly and production line worker, machine operator, delivery driver, cook, waitress, packager, custodian or housekeeper. However, in order to demonstrate that she is restricted from performing a “broad range of jobs in various classes,” Casey must demonstrate, at a minimum, that she is restricted in performing her previous job-“the job from which [she alleged she] was disqualified” or terminated because of her afflictions-that of a retail clerk/cashier at a convenience store/gas station.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(j)(3)(I) defines substantial limitation in working as a significant restriction on the ability to perform a class or broad range of jobs compared with the average person; inability to perform a single job is insufficient.

Gardull v. Perstorp Polyols, Inc. · filed 2005-08-19(j)(3)(I)

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 compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities. ... Gardull has failed to present evidence showing that his drug addiction substantially limited a major life activity.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(j)(3)(i) treats a person as substantially limited in working only when significantly restricted in performing a class or broad range of jobs compared with a similarly trained person; inability to perform one particular job is not enough.

Pare v. City of Bristol · filed 2005-08-31(j)(3)(i)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The regulation treats a person as substantially limited in working when there is a significant restriction on performing a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs compared with a person of comparable training, skills, and abilities.

Eshelman v. Agere Systems, Inc. · filed 2005-10-19(j)(3)(i)

Examined in the light most favorable to Eshelman, the evidence established that as Agere cutback to a leaner, restructured workforce, it erroneously perceived Eshelman as significantly restricted in her 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). Sufficient evidence supported the jury’s view that Eshelman’s uncontested cancer-related memory impairment — which resurfaced in 2001 in the context of her willingness to commute — caused Agere to perceive her as substantially limited in her ability to work.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(j)(3)(i) requires a plaintiff claiming a substantial limitation in working to show significant restriction in a class or broad range of jobs, not merely an inability to perform one particular job.

Hicks v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. · filed 2005-11-03(j)(3)(i)

To establish that an impairment substantially limits the ability to engage in the major life activity of working, the plaintiff must show that she is “significantly restricted in ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person with comparable training, skills and abilities.” ... The “inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Ross v. Alegent Health · filed 2005-07-13(j)(3)(i)

Describing what constitutes substantially limited in the major life activity of working, the CFR states: ... The term substantially limits means significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills, and abilities. The inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working. ... 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i). In the present case, evidence from the Vocational Expert indicates that Plaintiff “lost access to at least 22% of the jobs she had access to overall prior to her work related injury.” Additionally, Plaintiff is certified as a LPN and the Vocational Report states that in the field of nursing “Ms. Ross has lost access to 84% of the jobs; she had access to prior to her work related injury.” Viewing this alleged fact in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, Ross is excluded from 84% of the jobs that an average person with her training in nursing has access to. 84% is, indeed, a broad range of jobs.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For the major life activity of working, a substantial limitation means a significant restriction in performing a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes, not merely one particular job.

Whitlow v. VISITING NURSE ASS'N OF WESTERN NY · filed 2005-09-01(j)(3)

When read in the light most favorable to plaintiff, this record suggests circumstances sufficient to permit a rational finder of fact to infer that the duties assigned to plaintiff in her position as Billing/Collections Analyst in the VNA’s Finance Department encompassed “a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes” within the meaning of 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(Z), and that her Graves’ disease significantly restricted her ability to perform those duties.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(i) recognizes working as a major life activity, while § 1630.2(j) measures substantial limitation by inability or significant restriction, including exclusion from a class or broad range of jobs.

Duffett v. Mineta · filed 2006-05-12(i), (j)

Plaintiff has certainly raised a material issue of fact as to whether defendant’s limiting of plaintiffs employment to FSS ATCS duties and excluding him from “ATCS safety-related duties” reflects a belief that plaintiffs treatment for an oligodendroglioma substantially limits him in the major life activity of working.

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)(3)(i) treats inability to perform a single particular job as insufficient to substantially limit working, and § 1630.2(j)(2)(ii) treats a temporary impairment with little or no long-term impact as non-disabling.

Pittari v. American Eagle · filed 2006-11-09(j)(3)(i), (j)(2)(ii)

“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); ... “If American Eagle regarded Pittari as temporarily unable to perform “one particular job,” no violation of the ADA occurred.”

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) says that inability to perform one particular job is not enough; substantial limitation in working requires significant restriction in a class or broad range of jobs compared with a similarly trained person.

Burnett, David v. LFW Incorporated · filed 2006-12-26(j)(3)(i)

Under the ADA, “[t]he inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i); see Kupstas v. City of Greenwood, 398 F.3d 609, 612 (7th Cir. 2005). Rather, “[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.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i) (emphases added); see also Sutton v. United Air Lines, 527 U.S. 471, 491 (1999).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For the major life activity of working, § 1630.2(j)(3)(i) treats a person as substantially limited only when significantly restricted from performing a class or broad range of jobs; inability to perform one job alone is insufficient.

Napreljac v. John Q. Hammons Hotels, Inc. · filed 2006-11-08(j)(3)(i)

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

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) provides that being unable to perform only one particular job is not a substantial limitation in working, and that a temporary impairment with little or no long-term impact is not a disability.

Pittari v. American Eagle Airlines, Inc. · filed 2006-11-09(j)(3)(i), (j)(2)(i)-(iii)

“The inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working.” ... Under the ADA, a temporary impairment with little or no long-term impact does not constitute a disability. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(2)(ii)-(iii).

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

Section 1630.2(j) treats an individual as substantially limited in working only when an impairment significantly restricts access to a class of similar-skill jobs or a broad range of jobs in the relevant geographic area, considering the impairment’s severity, duration, and long-term impact.

Corley v. Dept. of Veterans · filed 2007-02-20(j)(1), (j)(3)(ii)(A)

“W ith respect to the major life activity of w orking[,] . . . [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.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(I); see Siemon v. AT&T Corp., 117 F.3d 1173, 1176 (10th Cir. 1997). The EEOC regulation states that “class of jobs” refers to “jobs utilizing similar training, knowledge, skills or abilities” within “the geographical area to which the [plaintiff] has reasonable access,” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(ii)(A)-(B); and “broad range of jobs in various classes” refers to “jobs not utilizing similar training, knowledge, skills or abilities, within that geographical area,” id. § 1630.2(j)(3)(ii)(C).

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.

An impairment substantially limits working only if it significantly restricts the person’s ability to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs, not merely one particular job.

McCoy v. Geico General Insurance · filed 2007-01-22(j)(3)(i)

Assuming that Plaintiffs migraine headaches and frequent urination constitute “physical impairments,” Plaintiff has failed to show that these impairments “substantially limit” any major life activity, such as working.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(j)(3)(i) treats a person as substantially limited in working when an impairment significantly restricts the ability to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes compared with an average person of comparable training, skills, and abilities.

Christensen v. Titan Distribution, Inc. · filed 2007-04-10(j)(3)(i)

A person is substantially limited from the major life activity of working when his impairment “significantly restricts] the individual’s ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(j)(3)(i) treats a person as substantially limited in working only when significantly restricted from a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs, and inability to perform one particular job is insufficient.

Hugh T. Butler, Sr. v. Greif Bros. Service Corp. · filed 2007-04-30(j)(3)(i)

A person is “substantially limited” in the major life activity of working when the person 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); D’Angelo, 422 F.3d at 1227 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i)). ... The regulations expressly state that “[t]he inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Charles Irvin Littleton, Jr. v. Wal-Mart Store · filed 2007-05-11(j)(3)(i)

As for the major life activity of working, “[t]he term substantially limits means significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities. The inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working.” See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i). Littleton, his mother and Agee all testified that there are no jobs he cannot perform because of any alleged disability. Accordingly, Littleton has not shown that he is substantially limited in this major life activity.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(j)(3)(i) requires a significant restriction in the ability to perform a class or broad range of jobs, not merely one particular job, to substantially limit the major life activity of working.

Carlson v. Liberty Mutual Insurance · filed 2007-06-07(j)(3)(i)

With respect to working: substantially limits means significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills, and abilities. 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). Carlson testified only that she was unable to drive for six months after her seizure. She specifically testified that as long as she took her medication, her ability to work was not limited. See Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 119 S. Ct. 2146 (1999) (stating any measures a person takes to correct for an impairment must be taken into account when judging whether that person is substantially limited in an MLA). Carlson also stated she initially requested Liberty Mutual pay for her to take a taxi to the office, further confirming her ability to work was not limited by anything other than her inability to drive. Furthermore, although she contends she is unable to perform certain jobs, she has not presented any evidence she is prevented from performing a “class of jobs” or a “broad range of jobs.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(j) treats an impairment as substantially limiting the major life activity of working only when it significantly restricts a person compared with similarly trained people in a class or broad range of jobs, not merely from one particular job.

Squibb v. Memorial Medical Center · filed 2007-08-16(j)(1), (j)(3)(i), (j)(3)(ii)(A)

The regulations provide that an individual is substantially limited in such activities if she is unable to perform such an activity or is “[significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under which” she can perform it, as compared to an average person in the general population. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(l). ... In order to be substantially limited in the major life activity of working, the regulations require that the individual be “significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(S)(i). A demonstrated “inability to perform a single, particular job” does not render an individual substantially limited in the major life activity of working. ... Because Ms. Squibb has not produced evidence sufficient to create a triable issue of fact regarding whether her back condition significantly restricted her ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes, she has not demonstrated that she is substantially limited in the major life activity of working.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(j)(3)(i) requires a claimant alleging substantial limitation in working to show a significant restriction in performing either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes.

Bryson v. Regis Corp. · filed 2007-08-16(j)(3)(i)

Thus, it is not enough for Bryson to present evidence showing that she can no longer work as a Supercuts manager. She must instead show that she is “significantly restricted in ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i). Bryson has failed to meet this standard. She has not established that her medical condition bars her from working in all jobs within the cosmetology field, or that it prevents her from holding a large number of jobs in other categories of employment.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(j)(1) treats an impairment as substantially limiting when it makes a person unable to perform a major life activity or significantly restricts the condition, manner, or duration of performing it; for working, § 1630.2(j)(3)(i) requires inability to perform a broad class of jobs, not merely one particular job.

Anderson v. the Foster Group · filed 2007-10-16(j)(1), (j)(3)(i)

Plaintiff was “substantially limited” if his impairment rendered him “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 the average person in the general population can perform that same major life activity.” ... Thus, to be substantially limited in the major daily life activity of “working,” Plaintiff must have been precluded from more than just one type of job or his particular job of choice.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under § 1630.2(j)(3)(i), working is substantially limited only when a person is significantly restricted from performing either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes compared with a similarly trained average person.

Moore v. Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners · filed 2008-01-08(j)(3)(i)

An individual’s ability to work is substantially limited only when the individual 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). Plaintiff has not presented sufficient evidence that her injuries substantially limited any major life activity, such as working, walking or standing.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(j)(3)(i) requires a plaintiff claiming substantial limitation in working to show significant restriction in performing either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes compared with a person of comparable training, skills, and abilities.

Delgado v. Certified Grocers Midwest, Inc. · filed 2008-06-23(j)(3)(i)

When a plaintiff claims that he is “substantially limited” in the major life activity of working, he must show that he is “ ‘significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills, and abilities.’ ” Kupstas, 398 F.3d at 612 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i)).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(j)(3)(i) requires a significant restriction affecting a class or broad range of jobs to establish a substantial limitation in working; inability to perform one particular job is insufficient.

Thornton v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · filed 2008-07-21(j)(3)(i)

(I) [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.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

An inability to perform one particular job is not a substantial limitation in working; substantial limitation requires significant restriction in performing a class or broad range of jobs.

Burnett v. Lfw Inc., Doing Business as the Habitat Company · filed 2006-12-26(j)(3)(i)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For the major life activity of working, § 1630.2(j)(3) requires a significant restriction in a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs, and inability to perform one particular job alone is insufficient.

DIAZ v. Big K-Mart · filed 2008-10-09(j)(3)

The EEOC regulation defines the term “substantially limits” in regards to the major life activity of working as: “significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average- person having comparable training, skills and abilities. The inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working.” 29 CFR § 1630.2(j)(3). (emphasis added) ... After reviewing the amended complaint this Court notes that Rodriguez did not allege that she is substantially limited to work in a broad class of jobs. ... In light of the specific pleading requirement established in Sutton, this Court concludes that Rodriguez failed to adequately allege that her disability substantially limits her in the major life activity of working. As such, Rodriguez’ allegation that her disability substantially limits her in the major life activity of working will be dismissed.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Daugherty v. Sajar Plastics, Inc. · filed 2008-10-16(j)(3)(i)

In addition to the unique hurdles posed by the psychological component of a regarded-as-disabled claim when the major life activity at issue is working, the statutory phrase “substantially limits” takes on special meaning in this context and imposes a stringent standard, requiring proof that the employer regarded the employee as “ ‘significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities. The inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working.’”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The regulation treats working as substantially limited only when a person is significantly restricted from performing a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes, assessed using geographic access and the types of jobs foreclosed.

Smiley v. Chrysler · filed 2008-12-11(j)(3)(i), (j)(3)(ii)

Where the major life activity at issue is working, the term “substantially limited” is defined as “significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities.” ... In making this determination, the court considers: ... (A) [t]he geographical area to which the individual has reasonable access; ... (B) [t]he job from which the individual has been disqualified because of an impairment, and the number and types of jobs utilizing similar training, knowledge, skills or abilities, within that geographical area, from which the individual is also disqualified because of the impairment (class of jobs); and/or ... (C)[t]he job from which the individual has been disqualified because of an impairment, and the number and types of other jobs not utilizing similar training, knowledge, skills or abilities, within that geographical area, from which the individual is also disqualified because of the impairment (broad range of jobs in various classes). ... Plaintiffs deposition testimony contravenes his position that he is limited in performing a “class” of jobs. ... Hence, he has failed to make a showing that he is disabled pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(A).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Eshelman v. Agere Systems, Inc. · filed 2009-01-30(j)(3)(i)

With regard to working, the regulations state that an individual is “substantially limited” if there is a significant restriction in a person’s “ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i). Accordingly, to prevail on her “regarded as” disabled claim under the ADA, Eshelman had to show that her termination was animated by Agere’s belief that she was unable to work in a particular class or broad range of jobs, as required by the definition of “disability.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Menes v. City University of New York Hunter College · filed 2008-09-25(j)(3)(i)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Mastrolillo v. Connecticut · filed 2009-11-05(j)(3)

An impairment “substantially limits” the major life activity of working if an individual 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). ... Here, Mastrolillo provided no evidence that she suffered from an impairment that satisfies the ADA’s definition of disability.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Cato v. FIRST FEDERAL COMMUNITY BANK · filed 2009-11-05(j)(3)(i)

When the major life activity at issue is working, “substantially limits” is defined as “significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills, and abilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(j)(3)(i) requires a substantial limitation in working to significantly restrict the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes, not merely a particular job or type of work.

Dave v. Lanier · filed 2010-02-03(j)(3)(i)

The applicable EEOC regulations specify that an individual is substantially limited in the major life activity of working if he or she is “significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i). “The inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working.” Id. ... In other words, the plaintiff has asserted, at most, only that his impairments significantly restricted his ability to perform purely physical work, as opposed to significantly restricting his “ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i). As a consequence, the plaintiff’s allegations fail to adequately state how his impairments substantially limited him in the major life activity of working.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(j)(3)(i) treats working as substantially limited only when a person is significantly restricted from performing a class or broad range of jobs; inability to perform one particular job is insufficient.

Scott v. Napolitano · filed 2010-05-03(j)(3)(i)

However, the fact that an employer questions whether an individual can perform a specific job does not mean that the employer regards the individual as disabled. The term “substantially limits” with respect to the major life activity of “working” 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.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(j)(3)(i) requires evidence that a person is significantly restricted from performing a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs, and inability to work with one particular colleague is insufficient.

Amyette v. Providence Health System · filed 2010-07-19(j)(3)(i)

To be “substantially limited” in one’s ability to work, one must be “significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i). ... At most, Amyette has shown that she is substantially limited in her ability to work alongside her colleague, Kay Andrews, with whom she has an adversarial relationship. This is insufficient to satisfy the “disability” element of an ADA claim.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(j)(3)(i) requires a significant restriction in performing a class or broad range of jobs, and inability to perform a single particular job is not enough.

Villanti v. Cold Spring Harbor Central School District · filed 2010-08-20(j)(3)(i)

Considering this medical evidence in light of the direction provided by the EEOC regulations interpreting the ADA, the Court finds that it is insufficient to show that the plaintiff is substantially limited in her ability to work, lift, carry, or exercise. ... This does not support the conclusion that Villanti is restricted from performing either “a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes,” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i), as required to show a substantial limitation of the ability to work.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(j)(3)(i) treats an individual as substantially limited in working only when the impairment significantly restricts the ability to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes.

DiCARA v. Connecticut Rivers Council · filed 2009-09-30(j)(3)(i)

EEOC regulations provide that an individual is substantially limited with respect to working if she is “significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes.” 29 C.F.R. section 1630.2(j)(3)(i)(1999). ... Accordingly, we find that DiCara’s physical impairment did not substantially interfere with the major life activity of working.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For the major life activity of working, a substantial limitation means significant restriction in performing a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes; inability to perform one particular job is not enough, and courts may consider geographic access and the number and types of jobs from which the person is disqualified.

Winborne v. Sunshine Health Care, Inc. · filed 2010-11-17(l), (j)(3)(I), (j)(3)(ii)

The regulations also provided that, with respect to the major life activity of working, the term “substantially limits means significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(I) (emphasis added). According to the regulations, “[t]he inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working.” Id. ... Winborne failed to present any evidence about the “number and types of jobs utilizing similar training, knowledge, skills or abilities, within that geographical area” or the “number and types of other jobs not utilizing similar training, knowledge, skills or abilities, within that geographical area” from which SHC perceived she was disqualified. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(ii).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The regulation treats an impairment as substantially limiting the major life activity of working only when it significantly restricts a class or broad range of jobs compared with the average person having comparable training, skills, and abilities; inability to perform one particular job is insufficient.

McDonald v. City of New York · filed 2011-04-06(j)(3)(i)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(j)(3) treats an impairment as substantially limiting the ability to work when it significantly restricts the person's ability to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes, assessed through an individualized inquiry.

Boitnott v. Corning Inc. · filed 2012-02-10(j)(3)

We have also reviewed the record, in a light most favorable to Boitnott as the non-moving party, to determine if there was evidence to demonstrate that his inability to work overtime "significantly restricted" his "ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities." 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3). This individualized inquiry is in recognition that Boitnott’s particular impairments and/or the labor market in his area could, under certain circumstances, make his inability to work overtime a substantial restriction on a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in his area of maintenance engineering. ... The record contains no evidence indicating that Boitnott’s inability to work overtime "significantly restricted" his ability to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Rubano v. Farrell Area School District · filed 2014-01-08(j)(3)(i)

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

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

Section 1630.2(j) requires a perceived limitation on working to exclude a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes, rather than merely one particular job.

Wolfe v. United States Steel Corp. · filed 2014-06-02(j)

The employee carries the burden of showing that the employer’s perception of his disability led to excluding him not just from one job, but from “either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes . . . .” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j) (2006); Daughtery v. Sajar Plastics, Inc., 544 F.3d 696, 704 (6th Cir. 2010).

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

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

Rehm v. Arctic Glacier West Point, Inc. · filed 2018-07-18(j)(3)(i)

“A person is substantially limited in his or her ability to work when the person is ‘significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities.’ ... ‘The inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working.’ ... The evidence Rehm was unable to perform his particular job at Arctic Glacier does not show he was substantially limited in a major life activity. See Bearshield, 570 N.W.2d at 920. Rehm did not show he was unable to perform different jobs that would not require him to lift heavy bags of ice or use a sledgehammer.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

An impairment substantially limits seeing when it significantly restricts the manner in which a person sees compared with the average person, even if the person compensates for the impairment; a qualified individual must be able to perform the essential job functions with or without reasonable accommodation.

Kirkingburg v. Albertson's, Inc. · filed 1998-07-01(j)(1)(ii), (m), (n)

Under the regulations, an impairment is substantially limiting if it "significantly restricts 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) (1993) (emphasis added). ... Given the nature of the condition and its permanence, there is no question that Kirkingburg is substantially limited in the major life activity of seeing. Kirkingburg's inability to see out of one eye affects his peripheral vision and his depth perception. Although his brain has developed subconscious mechanisms for coping with this visual impairment and thus his body compensates for his disability, the manner in which he sees differs significantly from the manner in which most people see. To put it in its simplest terms, Kirkingburg sees using only one eye; most people see using two. ... In this regard, Kirkingburg must establish (1) that he "satisfies the requisite skill, experience, education and other job-related requirements of the employment position [he] holds," and (2) that with or without reasonable accommodation, he can perform the essential functions of the position. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m); ... The regulations define the term "essential functions" to mean: "the fundamental job duties of the employment position." 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n).

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

Section 1630.2(j) requires a substantial limitation in the manner or ability to see; impaired vision alone is insufficient.

Overturf v. Penn Ventilator, Co., Inc. · filed 1996-06-26(j)(1)(ii)

Whether this is due to the fact that he worked in a “controlled environment,” the fact is that Plaintiffs impairment has not substantially limited either the manner in which he sees, or his ability to see.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(j)(1)(ii) treats vision as substantially limited when an impairment significantly restricts how a person sees compared with the average person; loss of depth perception and peripheral vision can meet that standard.

Coleman v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. · filed 1998-03-18(j)(1)(ii)

Based on the demonstrated effect that Plaintiffs impairment has had on his life and, in particular, on his ability to find employment, the Court finds that Plaintiffs impairment is both severe and has substantially limited his ability to see.

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

Section 1630.2(j)(1) treats a person as substantially limited in seeing when significantly restricted compared with the average person, and § 1630.2(o)(2)(ii) recognizes modified work schedules as reasonable accommodations.

Livingston v. Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. · filed 2010-07-21(j)(1) (o)(2)(ii)

A person’s ability to see is “substantially limited” if she is “[s]ignificantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under which [she] can [see] as compared to . . . the average person.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1). Livingston’s impairment prevents her from safely driving, walking, or leaving her house alone at night. Because an average person could safely drive, walk, and leave her house at night, Livingston is substantially limited in the major life activity of seeing. ... Although reasonable accommodations include modified work schedules, 42 U.S.C. § 12111(9)(B); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(2)(ii), the district court held that Fred Meyer Stores was not obligated to grant Livingston’s request for a modified schedule because the duty to accommodate does not extend to “commute-related limitations.” We disagree. ... Therefore, Fred Meyer Stores had a duty to accommodate Livingston’s inability to finish her scheduled shift, even though her disability did not affect her ability to function effectively as a wine steward. Livingston’s requested accommodation–a modified schedule that permits her to work an earlier shift–is reasonable because Fred Meyer did not experience any hardship when Livingston worked a modified schedule the previous year.

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 treats working as a major life activity, requires an impairment to limit an entire class or broad range of jobs rather than one job, and directs courts to consider severity, duration, and long-term impact.

Smith v. DataCard Corp. · filed 1998-06-24(i), (j)(3)(i), (j)(2)

Specifically, the regulations state that the term means “functions such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.” ... “The inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working.” ... Instead, the claimed impairment “must prevent the [plaintiff] from performing an entire class or broad range of jobs as compared to the average person possessing comparable training, skills, and abilities.” ... Finally, 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 actual or expected long-term impact.

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(i) treats working, walking, thinking, and learning as major life activities; after Sutton, substantial limitation under § 1630.2(j) is assessed with mitigating measures taken into account.

Todd v. Academy Corp. · filed 1999-08-05(i), (j)

The EEOC 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). Based on these guidelines, courts have concluded that working falls within the category of major life activities. ... These additional life activities, upon which the Plaintiff relies, are also considered major life activities pursuant to the EEOC guidelines. ... The inquiry has been transformed to a consideration of whether the condition, in its corrected or mitigated state, results in a substantial limitation on major life activities of an individual. An individual is now properly classified as having or not having a disability based on his life function under the influence of corrective or mitigating measures.

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 ADAAA rejected Toyota’s strict central-importance test, and the 2011 EEOC revision broadened the nonexhaustive major-life-activities definition.

Section 1630.2(i) identifies major life activities, including performing manual tasks and working; whether strenuous physical activities qualify as major life activities depends on whether they are of central importance to most people's daily lives and may present a jury question.

Gonzalez v. Rite Aid of New York, Inc. · filed 2002-05-08(i)

The ADA does not define “major life activities,” but the regulations promulgated by the EEOC under the ADA include “functions such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working” as “major life activities.” ... The question of whether “extreme physical exercise,” “strenuous lifting,” and “strenuous activity” in general are activities that are of “central importance to most people’s daily lives” is best decided by a jury at trial. The same inquiry exists with respect to the major life activity “manual tasks.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(i) identifies major life activities as activities of central importance to daily life, including working and caring for oneself.

Baucom v. Potter · filed 2002-09-17(i)

To be considered disabled within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act, an individual must show that he suffers from a medical condition that “substantially limits” his ability to perform a “major life activity.” ... “Major life activities” include only those activities that are of central importance to daily life, such as, caring for oneself, preforming manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i).