29 C.F.R. § 1630.2

The regulation identifies major life activities and requires a demanding, fact-specific assessment of whether an impairment substantially limits one, including whether the claimant is unable to work in a broad class of jobs.

Gretillat v. Care Initiatives · filed 2007-03-30(i), (j)(2), (j)(3)

Major life activities include “functions such as caring for one’s self, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.” ... A court should consider the nature, severity, duration, and long-term impact of the impairment when deciding whether that impairment substantially limits a major life activity. ... Crawling, kneeling, crouching, and squatting cannot be qualitatively characterized as sufficiently significant or essential to be on par with the functions set forth in 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i) as exemplifying major life activities. ... Even were we to treat working as a major life activity, see Nuzum, 432 F.3d at 844 (recognizing that the Supreme Court questions whether “working” is a major life activity but noting that we have considered it such), Gretillat supports her argument with conclusory statements and failed to present necessary evidence supportive of her contention that she was unable to work in a broad class of jobs. ... 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3) (describing facts relevant for consideration relating to the availability of certain job types in the geographic area); Wood, 339 F.3d at 686. Accordingly, in the absence of affirmative evidence necessary to establish her claimed limitation, Gretillat cannot demonstrate that she is substantially limited in her ability to work.

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

Pedroza v. Autozone, Inc. · filed 2008-01-29(j)(1)

A substantial limitation of a major life activity is one which “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.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(l).

Section 1630.2(j)(ii) defines “substantially limits” by comparing an individual’s restriction in performing a major life activity with that of the average person.

Blume v. John E. Potter, Postmaster Gen · filed 2008-08-14(j)(ii)

In relevant part, the EEOC defines “substantially limits” as being “[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)(ii). ... Without having had substantial limitations on his ability to perform life’s major activities, Blume does not satisfy the definition of a disabled person under the Rehabilitation Act.

Section 1630.2 identifies major life activities and explains when an impairment substantially limits one.

Cowart v. City of Eau Claire · filed 2008-07-16(1) (j)

Major life activities include “functions such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning and working.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(1) (1998). A major life activity is “substantially limited” when the person is unable to perform it or is significantly restricted in the manner, condition or duration in which she can perform it in comparison to the general population. ... citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j).

Section 1630.2 identifies major life activities, defines substantial limitation by comparison with average-person performance, and indicates that an employer may need to initiate an informal interactive process to determine a reasonable accommodation.

Talley v. Family Dollar Stores of Ohio, Inc. · filed 2008-09-11(i), (j)(1), (o)(3)

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has issued regulations that provide some guidance regarding the terms “substantially limits” and “major life activities.” The regulations explain that “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). An impairment will be found to substantially limit a major life activity if the individual is “[ujnable to perform a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform” or if the individual 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(j)(l). ... Additionally, we note that the ADA’s regulations indicate that, “[t]o determine the appropriate reasonable accommodation [for a given employee,] it may be necessary for the [employer] to initiate an informal, interactive process with the [employee].” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3). “The interactive process requires communication and good-faith exploration of possible accommodations.”

Section 1630.2 defines impairment and major life activities and requires an impairment to substantially limit a major life activity; inability to perform one particular job is insufficient to substantially limit working, and a record of disability must show a substantially limiting impairment.

Cody v. County of Nassau · filed 2008-09-19(h), (i), (j)(1), (j)(3)(i), (k)

The EEOC regulations provide that an impairment, whether physical or mental, “substantially limits” a major life activity where an individual is: ... (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 the average person in the general population can perform that same major life activity. ... 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(l). ... Nothing in any of the doctor’s notes submitted supports a finding that plaintiff is “unable to perform” or “significantly restricted” in her ability to perform the major life activities she has identified as being impacted — walking, climbing, bending, lifting or working.

Section 1630.2 identifies major life activities, defines when an impairment substantially limits them, and requires an inability to work in a broad class of jobs when working is the activity at issue.

McNeil v. Wayne County · filed 2008-11-06(i), (j)(1), (j)(3)(i)

The EEOC describes major life activities as including “functions such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i). To be “substantially limited” in such activities means that an individual is “[u]nable to perform a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform” or 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 . . . [an] average person in the general population.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1). Although the district court agreed that McNeill’s medical records and diagnoses suggested impairments that “diminished [her] quality of life and restricted her daily activities to some extent,” Def’s App. at 259–60, the court concluded that McNeill did not demonstrate ADA disability because she failed to establish that these impairments substantially limit major life activities. We agree.

Section 1630.2(i) treats walking as a major life activity, while § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii) defines substantial limitation by comparing the person's ability to perform it with that of the average person.

Turner v. the Saloon, Ltd. · filed 2010-02-08(i) (j)(1)(ii)

Turner maintains that his psoriasis constitutes a physical impairment that limits his ability to walk, a major life activity under 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i). ... The applicable ADA regulations explain that a person is “substantially limited” in a major life activity when he is “[significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under which [he] can perform a particular major life activity as compared to the 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).

Section 1630.2(j)(2) identifies the impairment factors relevant to substantial limitation, while § 1630.2(j)(3)(i) requires inability to work in a broad range of jobs rather than only one particular job.

Rivot-Sanchez v. Warner Chilcott Co., Inc. · filed 2010-03-31(j)(2), (j)(3)(i)

According to EEOC regulations, considerations in determining whether a claimed limitation is substantial include the nature and severity of the impairment, its duration or expected duration, and the real or expected permanent or long term impact resulting from the impairment. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(2). ... Unique to the major life activity of working, the phrase “substantially limits” requires that a claimant show an inability to work in a “broad range of jobs,” rather than a specific job. ... 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.”).

Section 1630.2(i) identifies seeing, hearing, speaking, and walking as major life activities, while § 1630.2(j) requires evidence of a substantial limitation; Ragusa's evidence did not meet that threshold.

Ragusa v. Malverne Union Free School District · filed 2010-06-21(i), (j)

Ragusa asserts that surgery to remove a benign brain tumor left her impaired in the “major life activities” of seeing, hearing, speaking, and walking. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i). The evidence, however, was insufficient to support a finding of “substantial” limitation. See 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1); Colwell v. Suffolk County Police Dep’t, 158 F.3d 635, 643-44 (2d Cir. 1998); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j). ... On this record, no reasonable factfinder could identify the requisite substantial limitation.

Section 1630.2(i) treats walking as a major life activity, and § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii) defines “substantially limits” by comparing an individual’s ability to perform that activity with the average person’s ability.

Kintz v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · filed 2011-02-07(i), (j)(1)(ii)

These regulations provide that walking is considered to be a major life activity as that term is used in the ADA. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i). The term “substantially limits” is defined as “significantly restricted as to the condition, manner, or duration under which an individual can perform a particular major life activity as compared to the condition, manner, or duration under which the average person in the general population can perform that same major life activity.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(l)(ii).

The regulation defines “substantially limits,” identifies major life activities such as caring for oneself, and requires a record-of-disability claimant to show a history of an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.

Larkin v. METHACTON SCHOOL DISTRICT · filed 2011-02-23(j)(l), (f), (k)

The EEOC regulations accompanying the ADA define “substantially limits” to mean either “[u]nable 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 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 activity.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(l).

The regulation defines mental impairment and requires an individualized, broadly construed assessment of substantial limitation by comparison with most people in the general population, considering functional effects rather than outcomes and disregarding mitigating measures.

Healy v. National Board of Osteopathic Medical Examiners, Inc. · filed 2012-05-03(h)(2), (j)(1)(i)-(iv), (j)(1)(vi), (j)(4)(i)-(iv)

A mental impairment is “any 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). ... In making this assessment, the Court may consider the condition, manner, and duration of the plaintiffs ability to perform a major life activity, including consideration of difficulty, effort, or time required, pain experienced, the length of time activity can be performed, and the way the impairment affects the operation of major bodily functions. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(4)(i)-(iii). Importantly, “the focus is on how a major life activity is substantially limited, and not one what outcomes an individual can achieve.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(4)(iv). ... For these reasons, the Court finds that Matthew’s reading disorder does not substantially limit his abilities to read, learn, concentrate, and think, as compared to the general population.

Section 1630.2(j)(l) defines a disability as an impairment that substantially limits an individual's ability to perform a major life activity compared with most people in the general population.

Akerson v. Pritzker · filed 2013-11-04(j)(l)

Because Plaintiff testifies she experiences such disruption throughout her workday, a reasonable jury could find that she is substantially limited in her ability to work “as compared to most people in the general population.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(l).

An impairment qualifies as a disability only if it substantially limits a major life activity compared with most people, although it need not prevent or significantly or severely restrict that activity.

Massaquoi v. District of Columbia Government · filed 2015-02-25(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. 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. Nonetheless, not every impairment will constitute a disability within the meaning of this section. ... The plaintiff’s complaint does not plausibly assert that he is disabled under the ADA because there is no allegation that his alleged “anxiety disorder” substantially limits a major life activity.

Section 1630.2(i)(1)(i) treats interacting with others as a major life activity, and § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii) defines substantially limiting by comparison with most people in the general population without requiring that an impairment prevent or significantly or severely restrict the activity.

Jacobs v. N.C. Admin. Office of the Courts · filed 2015-03-12(i)(1)(i), (j)(1)(ii)

We therefore defer to the EEOC’s determination and hold that interacting with others is a major life activity. ... The regulations define a substantially limiting impairment as one that “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.” Id. ... We therefore conclude that social anxiety disorder limits sufferers “as compared to most people in the general population.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii).

Section 1630.2(j)(2)(i) requires courts assessing whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity to consider the impairment’s nature and severity.

Johnson v. City of Chicago Board of Education · filed 2015-11-02(j)(2)(i)

In deciding whether a person is disabled, courts consider “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.”

Section 1630.2(j)(1)(ii) treats an impairment as substantially limiting when it limits a major life activity compared with most people, while § 1630.2(j)(4)(iii) focuses on the degree of limitation and the extra time or effort required rather than the outcome achieved.

Nadolski v. Associates in Sleep Medicine, Inc. · filed 2016-02-03(j)(1)(ii), (j)(4)(iii)

“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)(l)(ii). ... “For example, someone with a learning disability may achieve a high level of academic success, but may nevertheless be substantially limited in the major 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.” ... But Nadolski has not presented any evidence that it was more difficult for him to engage in his teaching and dramatic activities compared to the general public. There is no evidence that Nadolski had to expend greater time or effort in order to teach his classes or prepare for his role in the play.

The substantial-limitation standard is not demanding, and an episodic impairment is evaluated when active without regard to mitigating measures; scientific, medical, or statistical evidence is usually unnecessary.

Mariah J. Gage v. Rymes Heating Oils, Inc. · filed 2016-03-01(j)(1)(vi), (j)(1)(i)-(v)

Courts must consider whether an episodic impairment substantially limits a plaintiff’s major life activities “without regard to the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures,” such as medication. Id. at § 12102(4)(E); see 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(vi). ... The substantial limitation standard “is not meant to be . . . demanding,” and a plaintiff “usually will not [be required to produce] scientific, medical, or statistical analysis” to show that her impairment imposes a substantial limitation. ... Based upon the ADAAA’s plaintiff-friendly standard, then, and when drawing every reasonable inference in Gage’s favor, a reasonable juror could find that Gage’s migraine condition, when active and unmitigated, substantially limited her with respect to the major life activities of feeling, speaking and communicating. I thus decline to grant Rymes’ motion for summary judgment on this basis.

Section 1630.2(j)(1)(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.

Atwell v. Indianapolis-Marion County Forensic Services Agency · filed 2016-03-02(j)(1)(ii)

Instead, 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.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii).

The regulation's disability standard is not demanding, but it requires more than bare assertions: the impairment must substantially limit a major life activity compared with most people in the general population, and FMLA leave alone does not establish that limitation.

Shoemaker v. ConAgra Foods, Inc. · filed 2016-11-09(j)(1)(i) (j)(1)(ii)

While this is not meant to be a “demanding standard,” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(i), the plaintiff must present more than “bare assertions” of an impairment. ... Assuming that plaintiffs unspecified “painful back condition” is an impairment, plaintiff has not identified which major life activity is substantially limited by this impairment or how she is limited in performing a major life activity “as compared to most people in the general population.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii). ... The only arguably relevant evidence is that she occasionally requested and was granted FMLA leave for her own serious health condition. This does not, without more, equate to being substantially limited in a major life activity.

Section 1630.2(j)(1)(ii) defines a substantially limiting impairment by comparison with most people in the general population, without requiring prevention or significant or severe restriction of a major life activity.

Patterson v. McDonald · filed 2016-12-08(j)(1)(ii)

A substantially limiting impairment is one that “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,” Jacobs v. N.C. Admin. Office of the Courts, 780 F.3d 562, 573 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii)).

Section 1630.2(j) defines when an impairment substantially limits a major life activity and identifies factors for determining substantial limitation.

Smith v. Concentra, Inc. · filed 2017-03-01(j)(1)(i)-(ii), (j)(2)

In order to establish that she' is a qualified individual with a disability, Smith must demonstrate that (1) she has a physical or mental impairment that Substantially limits one of her major life activities, (2) she has a record of such impairment, or (3) she is regarded as having such impairment. ... A plaintiff has an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity when the 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 the average person in the general population can perform that same major life activity.” ... Factors to be considered in determining whether an individual is substantially limited in a major life activity include 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. ... Here, Smith has not presented any evidence to support her claim that she suffered from a physical or. mental impairment that substantially limited one of her major life activities. ... None of these impairments, however, rise to the level of interfering with a major life activity.

The regulation requires assessing whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity compared with how most people in the general population perform it.

Ramos v. Toperbee Corp. · filed 2017-03-13(j)(l)(ii)

Her impairment does not severely restrict use of her overall eyesight compared with how the average unimpaired person normally uses his or her eyesight in daily living. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(l)(ii)(“[a]n 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”).

Section 1630.2(j) provides that an impairment may be substantially limiting without preventing or severely restricting a major life activity, usually requires no scientific, medical, or statistical comparison, and includes substantially limited endocrine function as an example.

Barlia v. MWI Veterinary Supply · filed 2018-01-09(j)(1)(ii), (j)(1)(v), (j)(3)(iii)

To be considered substantially limiting, “[a]n impairment need not prevent, or significantly or severely restrict, the individual from performing a major life activity.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii) (2017). Rather, it need only “substantially limit[] the ability of [the] individual to perform a major life activity as compared to most people in the general population.” Ibid. ... “[U]sually [this comparison] will not require scientific, medical, or statistical analysis.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(v) (2017). ... In this limited respect, then, it is akin to diabetes, which the Code of Federal Regulations classifies as a “substantial[] limit[ation of] endocrine function.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(iii) (2017).

The regulation identifies major life activities and requires the substantial-limitation inquiry to be broad and non-demanding.

Scheidt v. Floor Covering Associates, Inc. · filed 2018-09-28(i)(1)(i), (j)(iii)

The phrase “major life activities” is defined to include “[c]aring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, sitting, reaching, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, interacting with others, and working.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i)(1)(i). ... With respect to the first and second prongs of the ADA’s definition of disabled, “the threshold issue of whether an impairment ‘substantially limits’ a major life activity should not demand extensive analysis.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(iii). The term “substantially limits” is to “be construed broadly in favor of expansive coverage” and “is not meant to be a demanding standard.” Id. at § 1630.2(j)(i).

An impairment is substantially limiting when it restricts a major life activity compared with most people in the general population; it need not prevent or severely restrict that activity, and breathing is a major life activity.

U.S. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Mid S. Extrusion Inc. · filed 2018-10-18(j)(1)(ii)

"An impairment is a disability within the meaning of this section if is 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." ... "However, at this stage, the Court may rely on Wyant's own statement that his lungs are functioning at a significantly low capacity of 50%, as compared to a non-disabled person. This is a permanent condition that affects his ability to breathe as compared to most people in the general population, breathing is a major life activity, and Wyant will be restricted in breathing for the rest of his life."

Section 1630.2(j)(1) treats an impairment as substantially limiting when it substantially limits a major life activity, and the court applied that standard to find Mercado's 10-pound lifting impairment substantial.

Cordova v. Walmart Puerto Rico, Inc. · filed 2019-03-29(j)(1)

In light of the above, the Court finds that Mercado's 10-pound lifting impairment constitutes a substantial limitation to a major life activity under ADAAA standards.

The regulation requires an impairment to substantially limit a major life activity; a mere limitation is insufficient, and substantiality may depend on the impairment's severity and duration.

Hamilton v. Prince George's County · filed 2019-09-27(j)(1)

While Brockman left open the possibility that “complications due to pregnancy can constitute a disability under the [ADA],” id., the court made it clear that pregnancy complications would still need substantially to limit a major life activity in order to do so. Id. ... In this case, the record is undisputed that Cpl. Hamilton was not “substantially limited” in any major life activity. Cpl. Hamilton contends that the complications from her pregnancy limited her because her doctor told her she could not drive more than 60 miles a day. Assuming, arguendo, that driving constitutes a major life activity, a limitation to fewer than 60 miles a day is not a “substantial” limitation. Under the analysis in Brockman, “It is not enough that her ability to [drive] be limited - it must be substantially limited.” Because Cpl. Hamilton has not established that her pregnancy complications substantially limited a major life activity, the court will grant summary judgment in favor of Defendants on Counts IV and VI of the Amended Complaint.

An impairment can substantially limit a major life activity even if it does not prevent or significantly or severely restrict the activity, measured against most people in the general population.

Covington v. Johnson · filed 2019-10-01(j)(1)(ii)

An impairment counts as a disability under 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. 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)(1)(ii). ... This is a preposterous suggestion. ... The Court firmly rejects this position. Instead, it finds that, in light of the ADAAA 2008 instructions regarding the broad interpretation of “disability,” the evidence of Covington’s 2012 symptoms and ADHD diagnosis, along with evidence that she has been prescribed medication continuously since that time, could lead a reasonable jury to find her ADHD substantially limited her ability to perform the major life activities of concentrating and thinking during her employment with the MPD.

Section 1630.2(j)(1)(ii) defines a substantial limitation by comparing an individual's ability to perform a major life activity with that of most people in the general population.

Seay v. Eagle Cleaning Service · filed 2019-10-15(j)(1)(ii)

An impairment “substantially limits” one of these activities if it restricts “the ability of an individual to perform [the life activity] as compared to most people in the general population.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii). Here, Seay alleges that she suffers from degenerative arthritis, a condition affecting the musculoskeletal system. Seay’s only evidence in support of this allegation is her unsworn complaint. Even assuming, arguendo, that she suffers from a physical impairment, Seay has failed to produce any admissible evidence demonstrating that the impairment “substantially limits . . . [a] major life activit[y].” See 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(A).

Section 1630.2(j) treats substantial limitation broadly: courts compare the claimant with most people in the general population, and an impairment need not prevent or severely restrict a major life activity.

Morrissey v. Laurel Health Care Co. · filed 2019-12-03(j)(1)(i), (j)(1)(ii), (j)(3)(i)

“To determine whether a disability substantially limits major life activities, the regulations direct courts to compare the person claiming a disability to ‘most people in the general population.’” Hostettler, 895 F.3d at 854 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii)). This is not a demanding standard, 29 C.F.R. § 1630 (Appendix), and in general, a plaintiff does not need to submit scientific, medical, or statistical proof to establish a substantial limitation, § 1630.2(j)(v). Additionally, “‘[a]n impairment need not prevent, or significantly or severely restrict . . . a major life activity’ to be substantially limiting.” Id. at 853-54 (quoting § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii)).

The regulation treats physiological conditions affecting body systems as physical impairments and measures substantial limitation by comparing the condition, manner, and duration of performing a major life activity with the general population; moderate limitations alone do not establish substantial limitation.

Johnson v. Daugaard · filed 2020-03-23(h)(1) (j)(4)(i)

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). ... When determining whether a major life activity is substantially limited it is appropriate to compare the limitation to that of the general population and compare 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.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(4)(i).

Section 1630.2 treats breathing as a major life activity, measures substantial limitation against the general population through an individualized assessment, and defines reasonable accommodation as an adjustment enabling a qualified person to perform essential job functions.

Clark v. Sarpy County · filed 2020-04-10(i)(1)(i), (j)(1)(ii), (o)(1)(ii)

Major Life Activities include, among others, the functions of breathing, working, respiration, and the immune system. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i)(1)(i)- (ii). Whether a disability is a substantial limitation depends on the extent to which it constrains performance of a major life activity in comparison to the general population. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii). ... A reasonable accommodation is one that would have enabled plaintiff to perform her role as an evidence technician. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(1)(ii). Therefore, plaintiff has made a facial showing and created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Sarpy County failed to reasonably accommodate her.

Section 1630.2(j)(1)(ii) defines a substantial limitation by comparison with most people in the general population and does not require an impairment to prevent or significantly or severely restrict a major life activity.

Miller v. MD Dept. of Natural Resources · filed 2020-06-12(j)(1)(ii)

For a major life activity to be “substantially limit[ed],” the impairment need only “substantially limit[] 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)(1)(ii). ... Though a substantial limitation need not be severe, Appellant’s claim that he suffered “difficulties” lifting and sleeping falls well short of alleging he was limited “as compared to most people in the general population.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii).

Section 1630.2(j)(ii) provides that an impairment may substantially limit a major life activity even if it does not prevent or significantly or severely restrict the activity.

Sullivan v. Storer Transit Systems · filed 2020-06-16(j)(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.”

Section 1630.2(j)(1)(ii) asks whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity compared with most people in the general population.

CRAWFORD v. JEFFERSON HOSPITAL · filed 2020-06-24(j)(1)(ii)

The relevant inquiry remains whether the impairment ‘substantially limits the ability of an individual to perform a major life activity as compared to most people in the general population.’

The regulation treats an impairment as substantially limiting when it limits a major life activity compared with most people, without requiring prevention or severe restriction, and permits coverage under any one or more of the three disability prongs.

Okyere v. John Bean Technologies Corporation · filed 2020-12-22(j)(1)(ii), (g)(2)

A substantially limiting impairment is one that “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). ... However, “[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.” Id. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii). ... Plaintiffs may proceed in the alternative arguing disability under all three prongs of the definition of disability. See, e.g., Gentry v. E. W. Partners Club Mgmt. Co. Inc., 816 F.3d 228, 236-38 (4th Cir. 2016); see also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(g)(2) (“An individual may establish coverage under any one or more of these three prongs of the definition of disability.”). ... Plaintiff fails to allege how his injury affected any specific major life activity, let alone how that limitation is substantial.

The regulation measures substantial limitation by comparing a person's ability to perform a major life activity with that of most people in the general population.

Carter v. St. Tammany Parish School Board · filed 2021-03-29(j)(1)(ii)

A court looks to whether an individual’s impairment “substantially limits” her “ability ‘to perform a major life activity as compared to most people in the general population.’” Cannon, 813 F.3d at 591 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii)).

An impairment need not prevent or severely restrict a major life activity to be substantially limiting, but not every impairment qualifies as a disability.

Woods v. THOMPSON GROUP, INC. · filed 2021-04-01(j)(1)(i)

“An impairment need not prevent, or significantly or severely restrict, the individual from performing a major life activity in order to be considered substantially limiting,” but “not every impairment will constitute a disability” within the meaning of the statute. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(i).

The regulation treats an impairment 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.

CHAMPION v. MANNINGTON MILLS INC · filed 2021-05-10(j)(1)(ii)

Further, “[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.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(7)(1}{ii). ... While she alleged that Evans had to miss several days of work due to his COVID-19 infection, that bare allegation, without more, does not rise to the level of a “disability” under the ADA.

The regulation defines substantial limitation by comparison with most people in the general population, does not require prevention or severe restriction of a major life activity, and does not require an actual disability to be long-lasting.

Miller v. Maryland Department of Natural Resources · filed 2021-08-16(j)(1)(ii), (j)(1)(ix)

For a major life activity to be “substantially limit[ed],” the impairment need only “substantially limit[] 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)(1)(ii). ... Importantly, however, there is no requirement that an actual disability be long-lasting. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ix). ... Further, because his injury affects his ability to complete normal daily tasks, he has successfully pleaded that his impairment substantially limits his ability to perform major life activities “as compared to most people in the general population.” See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii). As such, Miller’s Fourth Amended Complaint corrects the deficiencies the Fourth Circuit identified in his First Amended Complaint. Because Miller has plausibly alleged an actual disability for the purposes of his failure to accommodate and wrongful termination claims, Counts I and III survive DNR’s Motion to Dismiss.

An impairment is a disability only if it substantially limits a major life activity compared with most people, although it need not prevent or significantly or severely restrict that activity.

Douglas v. Ben E Keith Company · filed 2021-09-01(j)(1)(ii)

An impairment is a disability within the meaning of [§ 12102] 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. Nonetheless, not every impairment will constitute a disability within the meaning of this section.

Section 1630.2 treats substantial limitation as a broad, non-demanding standard for determining whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity.

Eversull v. Valley Farmers Co-Op Inc · filed 2021-08-09(j)(1)(iii)

Whether or not an impairment “substantially limits” a major life activity “is not meant to be a demanding standard,” and “should not demand extensive analysis.”

Section 1630.2(i)(1) identifies breathing and specified bodily functions as major life activities, while § 1630.2(j)(1) requires “substantially limits” to be construed broadly and as a non-demanding standard.

Williams v. City of Childress · filed 2021-09-03(i)(1), (j)(1)

Major life activities include “caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, . . . breathing, .. ..” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i)(1)(). ... “the operation of a major bodily function” such as “functions of the immune system. .. and... brain respiratory, circulatory, cardiovascular . . . functions” are also major life activities. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i)(1)(ii). ... Importantly, “the term substantially limits shall be construed broadly in favor of expansive coverage” and is “not meant to be a demanding standard.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(@i).

When deciding whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity, courts consider the condition, manner, and duration of the person's ability, including difficulty, effort or time required, pain, duration of performance, and effects on major bodily functions.

SMITH v. KINDEZI ACADEMY, LLC · filed 2021-09-30(j)(4)(i)

In determining whether an individual's major life activities are substantially limited, a court should consider the condition, manner and duration of the individual’s ability to perform a major life activity, including consideration of difficulty, effort, or time required, pain experienced, the length of time activity can be performed and the way the impairment affects the operation of major bodily functions. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(4)(i)-(iii). ... Here, considering the factors contemplated by the ADA and its implementing regulations, the Court agrees with the School: Mr. Smith was not, at least at the time of his termination, a qualified individual with a disability.

The regulation directs courts to focus on whether covered entities complied with their obligations and not demand extensive analysis of whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity.

Medina-Rodriguez v. Canovanas Plaza Rial · filed 2021-09-30(j)(1)(iii)

“The primary object of attention in cases brought under the ADA should be whether covered entities have complied with their obligations, not whether an individual's impairment substantially limits a major life activity. Accordingly, the threshold issue of whether an impairment ‘substantially limits' a major life activity should not demand extensive analysis.”

Section 1630.2(j)(1)(ii) treats an impairment as substantially limiting when it substantially limits a major life activity compared with most people generally, without requiring that it prevent or severely restrict the activity.

Parker v. Children's National Medical Center, Inc. · filed 2021-12-09(j)(1)(ii)

“For a major life activity to be ‘substantially limit[ed],’ the impairment need only ‘substantially limit[ ] 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.’” ... “Parker adequately alleged the existence of a disability.”

The regulation measures whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity by comparing the individual's ability to perform it with that of most people in the general population.

Philbert v. New York City Department Of Education · filed 2022-01-07(j)(1)(ii)

A plaintiff-specific showing will be necessary because, as the EEOC regulations note, a cognizable disability limits an individual’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) (emphasis added).

The regulation identifies working, reaching, and lifting as major life activities and requires substantial limitation to be assessed broadly against performance by most people, without requiring prevention or severe restriction.

Frazier-Hill v. Chicago Transit Authority · filed 2022-03-15(i)(1)(i), (j)(1)(i), (j)(1)(ii), (j)(3)

And working, reaching, and lifting are major life activities. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i)(1)(i). Thus, the question is whether Frazier-Hill came forward with sufficient evidence to support a verdict in her favor by a reasonable jury that her carpal tunnel substantially limited her ability to work, reach, or lift. The key verb in the phrase is “limit[]” – the impairment must substantially limit the activity. See 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2). A plaintiff does not have to prove that the disability prevented the activity altogether. To substantially limit an activity, “[a]n impairment need not prevent, or significantly or severely restrict, the individual from performing a major life activity.” See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii). ... Instead, the impairment only needs to “substantially limit[] the ability of an individual to perform a major life activity as compared to most people in the general population.” Id. “The term ‘substantially limits’ shall be construed broadly in favor of expansive coverage, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA. ‘Substantially limits’ is not meant to be a demanding standard.” See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(i). ... So too here. Frazier-Hill presented evidence that her medical condition limited her ability to drive 60-foot articulated buses. But there is no evidence in the record that she cannot drive buses more generally. In fact, Frazier-Hill concedes that she can drive 40-foot buses. That concession means that her condition does not substantially limit the major life activity of working.

Section 1630.2(i) identifies major life activities, and § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii) defines a substantial limitation by comparing an individual's ability to perform a major life activity with that of most people in the general population.

Adams v. Hanover Foods Corporation · filed 2022-03-31(i), (j)(1)(ii)

Major life activities include, inter alia, walking, standing, sitting, reaching, lifting, bending, learning, concentrating, thinking, communicating, interacting with others, and working. See id. § 12102(2)(A); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i). Federal regulations clarify that an impairment “substantially limits” a major life activity if it “limits the ability of an individual to perform a major life activity as compared to most people in the general population.” ... Upon review of the complaint, the court concludes Adams has not sufficiently alleged a disability that substantially limits any major life activities. ... We thus conclude the complaint lacks the requisite factual allegations to establish either of Adams’ alleged disabilities.

Section 1630.2(j)(1)(ii) treats an impairment as substantially limiting even if it does not prevent or significantly or severely restrict a major life activity; the court applied that standard to an episodic gastrointestinal condition that substantially limited major life activities when active.

January v. City of Huntsville · filed 2022-06-24(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.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii). ... Under the post-amendment Americans with Disabilities Act, January has submitted sufficient evidence that he has a disability. He has intermittent gastrointestinal issues which limit his ability to walk, sleep, eat, work, and digest, and that can sometimes be so painful as to require heavy pain medication. (Docket Entry No. 30-1 at 44–55, 109–10, 186). This is substantially limiting him compared to people in the general population when his condition is active.

Section 1630.2(j)(ii) defines substantial limitation by comparison with most people in the general population, while § 1630.2(i) identifies major life activities such as breathing and working.

Dowdy v. Dent Air Conditioning Company · filed 2022-08-18(j)(ii), (i)

An impairment is substantially limiting only 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)(ii). Major life events include caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working. , 274 F.3d 282, 287 (5th Cir. 2001) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i)).

Section 1630.2(j)(1)(ix) means that an impairment lasting fewer than six months may still substantially limit a major life activity, with duration treated as only one factor.

COLEMAN v. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA · filed 2022-08-23(j)(1)(ix)

The EEOC subsequently updated its regulations to provide that, with respect to an “actual disability” claim, as here, impairments lasting fewer than six months may be substantially limiting. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ix). Thus, under the current regulations, the duration of an impairment is just one factor to consider in determining whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity.

Section (j)(3)(iii) treats major depressive disorder as an impairment that substantially limits brain function and therefore a major life activity.

Dungey v. Culmen International LLC · filed 2022-09-20(j)(3)(iii)

And while Plaintiff has not pleaded how his anxiety and depression “substantially limit[] a major life activity,” the Department of Labor’s guidance confirms that “major depressive disorder” “substantially limit[s] brain function” and thus qualifies as a substantial limitation to a major life activity. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(iii).

Section 1630.2 distinguishes physical impairments from major life activities and requires evidence that an impairment substantially limits a listed activity; difficulty walking alone is insufficient.

CULVER v. METROPOLITAN SCHOOL DISTRICT OF MARTINSVILLE · filed 2022-09-27(h)(1), (i)(1)(i), (i), (j)(1)(i), (k)

Giving Mr. Culver the benefit of all inferences, it is fair to assume that his arthritis, fibromyalgia, and knee and back surgeries would give him difficulty walking. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i)(1)(i) (listing "walking" as a major life activity). But "walking with difficulty" is not the same thing as being substantially limited at walking. See Turner v. The Saloon, Ltd., 595 F.3d 679, 689 (7th Cir. 2010). ... Mr. Culver argues that major life activities include "physiological disorders affecting the musculoskeletal system." Dkt. 50 at 24 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1)). But that is incorrect: a physiological disorder is a "physical or mental impairment," not a "major life activity." Mr. Culver must provide evidence that this impairment affects a "major life activity" to qualify under the Act. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i) (listing major life activities such as reading, concentrating, and thinking).

Section 1630.2(j)(1)(ii) treats an impairment as substantially limiting a major life activity when it prevents a person from pursuing that activity comparably to most people in the general population; at the pleading stage, severe asthma plausibly qualified as a disability.

MUNDY v. CITY OF PITTSBURGH · filed 2022-12-22(j)(1)(ii)

“An individual is substantially limited in performing a major life activity if that individual is unable to pursue that major life activity in a comparable manner ‘to most people in the general population.’ ... As a pro se plaintiff, and for the purposes of the present Motion to Dismiss, Ms. Mundy sufficiently pleads that her asthma condition qualifies her as a disabled person to satisfy the first element of her prima facie case.”

Section 1630.2(j)(1) treats an impairment as substantially limiting when it significantly restricts a person's major life activity compared with an average person.

Lucio v. Poula Investment LLC · filed 2023-03-28(j)(1)

Therefore, for Lucio to show she is disabled she must show either: 1) that she cannot perform a major life activity that an average person can perform; or 2) that her performance of a major life activity is significantly restricted in the condition, manner, or duration when compared to an average person. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1); Boerst v. Gen. Mills Operations, Inc., 25 F. App’x 403, 407 (6th Cir. 2002). ... When accounting for the ADA’s intent for broad coverage, and when factoring out Lucio’s cane usage, it is clear she is disabled under the ADA. Lucio’s ability to perform a major life activity, walking, is significantly restricted in condition, manner, and duration when compared to an average person. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1); Boerst, 25 F. App’x at 407.

The regulation recognizes bowel and bladder functions as major life activities and defines a substantial limitation by comparison with most people in the general population.

Jenkins v. Amedisys Holdings LLC · filed 2023-04-13(i)(1)(ii), (j)(1)(ii)

A “major life activity” may include “[t]he operation of a major bodily function, including . . . bowel, [or] bladder functions.” 29 CFR § 1630.2(i)(1)(ii). And a “substantial limitation” is one which “limits the ability of an individual to perform a major life activity as compared to most people in the general population.” 29 CFR § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii).

An impairment is a disability when it substantially limits an individual's ability to perform a major life activity compared with most people in the general population.

Friend v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP · filed 2023-05-11(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.”

A condition is substantially limiting when it significantly restricts the condition, manner, or duration under which a person can perform a particular major life activity compared with the average person.

Lopez v. Amazon.com Services LLC · filed 2023-06-27(j)(1)(ii)

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

Section 1630.2(j)(1)(ii) treats an impairment as substantially limiting even if it does not prevent or significantly or severely restrict performance of a major life activity.

Kelly v. ACTS Retirement-Life Communities, Inc. · filed 2023-09-05(j)(1)(ii)

A major life activity is “substantially limit[ed]” if the impairment “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)(1)(ii). ... Further, she explains that her allergies are connected to her capacity to breathe, noting that anaphylaxis causes “a sudden drop in blood pressure and the narrowing of the airways, blocking breathing” and potentially “result[ing] in death.” (Compl. ¶ 12). Breathing is a major life activity under the ADA. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(A). The Court, therefore, finds that Kelly’s factual support of her purported disability is sufficient at this stage in the case. ... Here, Kelly specifically alleges that she went into anaphylactic shock that nearly killed her after receiving a prior vaccination due to her severe allergies. (See Compl. ¶ 11). Although Kelly may need to develop further facts that connect the vaccines for purposes of summary judgment, she has sufficiently identified her severe allergies and previous reaction as a disability for this stage in the case.

Section 1630.2(j)(ii) measures substantial limitation by comparing an individual's ability to perform a major life activity with that of most people in the general population; evidence of multiple sclerosis was sufficient at summary judgment to show a qualifying disability.

Carter 410324 v. Washington · filed 2023-09-13(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.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(ii). ... Here, there is enough evidence that Plaintiff suffered from a qualifying disability at the time of the complained-of incidents to survive a motion for summary judgment.

An impairment is substantially limiting only when it restricts a major life activity compared with most people in the general population, requiring an individualized assessment.

Brady v. The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society · filed 2023-10-02(j)(1)(ii)

The impairment, either physical or mental, must substantially limit an individual’s major life activities “as compared to most people in the general population.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii); Mueck, 75 F.4th at 479 (quotations omitted). ... Here, the complaint alleges that Brady suffers from allergies, an unspecified autoimmune disease, and a joint condition, without establishing the severity of these impairments or how they limit her major life activities. The complaint merely alleges that these conditions are severe and that they “substantially impact her ability to live a normal life.” (Dkt. #1 ¶ 16). Because these conclusory allegations fall short of demonstrating a handicap under the individualized assessment mandated by the Supreme Court, Brady’s FHA discrimination claim must be dismissed.

An impairment is a disability only when it substantially limits an individual's ability to perform a major life activity compared with most people in the general population.

Foshee v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP · filed 2023-10-17(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.” ... “Initially, the Regarded As Plaintiffs have not alleged facts showing they were regarded as having any physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity.”

The regulation treats “substantially limits” as a non-demanding standard, directs courts to assess how an impairment affects a major life activity rather than its outcomes, permits consideration of difficulty, effort, and time, and disregards mitigating measures.

KITCHENS v. UNITED STATES MEDICAL LICENSING EXAMINATION · filed 2023-10-31(j)(1), (j)(4), (j)(4)(iii)

Though not every impairment constitutes a disability under the ADA, the “substantially limits” standard is not a demanding one, and the comparison of an individual’s performance of a major life activity to that of the general population “usually will not require scientific, medical, or statistical analysis.” 29 C.F.R. §§ 1630.2(j)(1)(i-v). Our analysis must focus on “how a major life activity is substantially limited, and not on what outcomes an individual can achieve.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(4)(iii). ... We may, however, consider the condition, manner, or duration it takes an individual to perform a major life activity, including the difficulty, effort, or time required to perform it. 29 C.F.R. §§ 1630.2(j)(4)(i-ii). For instance — “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)(iii).

Section 1630.2(j)(1)(ii) requires an impairment to substantially limit a major life activity before it qualifies as a disability.

Schmiege v. The State of New York · filed 2023-12-19(j)(1)(ii)

An impairment is not a disability unless it substantially limits a major life activity.

A substantial limitation under the pre-ADAAA standard requires inability or significant restriction in performing a major life activity compared with the average person, assessed by the impairment’s nature, severity, duration, and long-term impact.

ANGELIS v. PHILADELPHIA HOUSING AUTHORITY · filed 2024-02-15(j)(1)(i)

The phrase “substantially limits” for purposes of this statute means “[u]nable to perform a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform” or “[s]ignificantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under which an individual can perform a particular major life activity as compared to the condition, manner, or duration under which the average person in the general population can perform the same major life activity.” ... “The nature and severity of the impairment,” “the duration or 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” are analyzed to determine whether an individual meets this standard. ... Similarly, Plaintiff has not pled facts from which we can infer the nature or severity of his condition, its duration or expected duration, or any expected permanent or long-term impacts associated with it. See Maslanka v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc., 305 F. App’x 848, 852 (3d Cir. 2008) (affirming a district court’s finding that a parties’ depression and anxiety did not constitute a disability when “there is nothing in this record indicating that his impairment substantially limited the major life activities of sleeping, concentrating, or working”); Ashton v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 225 F. App’x 61, 67 (3d Cir. 2007) (holding that a plaintiff’s anxiety condition did not constitute a disability in part because “there is nothing in [the] record to show that [the plaintiff] suffered negative long-term or permanent impact from her impairment”). Accordingly, Plaintiff has not sufficiently alleged that he was disabled under the PHRA.

The regulation identifies major life activities and requires a broad, non-demanding assessment of whether an impairment substantially limits one or more of them.

HANLON v. PRECISION METAL SERVICES, INC. · filed 2024-01-31(i)(1), (j)(1)(i)-(iii)

Although Plaintiff continued to perform his job duties for Defendant in spite of the pain caused by the herniated disc and the scar tissue, the record shows that Plaintiff’s pain substantially limited him in the major life activities of standing, bending, walking, and caring for himself.

An impairment substantially limits a major life activity under a nondemanding standard; it need not prevent or significantly or severely restrict the activity, and seeing and reading are major life activities.

GREER v. REAGLE · filed 2024-03-06(j)(1)(i), (j)(1)(ii), (i)(1)(i)

The phrase "substantially limits" is not meant to be a demanding standard. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(i). In fact, "[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." Moore, 89 F.4th at 594 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii)). By statute and regulation, "seeing" and "reading" are major life activities. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(a); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i)(1)(i).

Section 1630.2(j)(1)(ii) requires comparing a person’s ability to perform a major life activity with that of most people in the general population; the impairment need not prevent or severely restrict the activity, but not every impairment is substantially limiting.

Covington v. Union Memorial Hospital · filed 2024-08-13(j)(1)(ii)

For a major life activity to be substantially limited, 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. 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. Nonetheless, not every impairment will constitute a disability within the meaning of this section. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii). ... Because Plaintiff has not demonstrated that his impairments substantially limited his major life activities, he has failed to establish that he was actually disabled.

An impairment need not prevent or severely restrict a major life activity to be substantially limiting, but not every impairment constitutes a disability.

BRAXTON III v. INDIANAPOLIS PUBLIC SCHOOLS · filed 2024-08-14(i)

The term "substantially limits" compares "the ability of an individual to perform a major life activity [versus] 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. Nonetheless, not every impairment will constitute a disability." 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i)-(ii).

Section 1630.2(j)(1)(ii) measures substantial limitation by relative inability to perform a major life activity compared with most people, without requiring prevention or significant or severe restriction, while § 1630.2(i)(1)(i) identifies seeing and reading as major life activities.

McCabe v. Tire Web LLC dba Online Tires · filed 2024-09-11(j)(1)(ii); (i)(1)(i)

Under the first definition, the plaintiff must demonstrate her relative inability “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.” Richardson v. Chi. Transit Auth., 926 F.3d 881, 888–89 (7th Cir. 2019) (quoting 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(j)(1)(ii)). As to “major life activities” that may be impaired by a disability, the ADA regulations contain a non-exhaustive list which includes “seeing” and “reading” as “major life activities.” 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(i)(1)(i).

The regulation interprets “substantially limits” broadly and as a non-demanding standard, and identifies breathing and thinking as major life activities.

BRISSON v. SALISBURY HOUSING AUTHORITY · filed 2024-09-30(j), (j)(1)(i)

According to the Code of Federal Regulations, “[t]he term ‘substantially limits’ sh[ould] be construed broadly in favor of expansive coverage” and “is not meant to be a demanding standard.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(i). ... As detailed above, “breathing” and “thinking” are “major life activities” expressly enumerated by the Code of Federal Regulations. ... Although the Complaint provides only a few details about Plaintiff’s condition, this court finds the facts and reasonable inferences drawn from those facts sufficient to plausibly allege a disability. Whether or not Plaintiff’s sensitivity and alleged physical difficulties are sufficient to establish a “substantial limit” on “one or more major life activities” are matters that will have to be addressed following discovery.

Section 1630.2(j)(1)(ii) requires an impairment to substantially limit a major life activity compared with most people in the general population, while § 1630.2(j)(3) recognizes that an individualized assessment will establish disability in virtually all cases for certain impairments.

Brady v. The Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society · filed 2024-10-08(j)(1)(ii), (j)(3)

A handicap or disability under the federal discrimination laws means something more than an impairment. The impairment, either physical or mental, must substantially limit an individual’s major life activities “as compared to most people in the general population.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii); Mueck v. La Grange Acquisitions, L.P., 75 F.4th 469, 479 (5th Cir. 2023) (quotations omitted). ... Admittedly, for certain impairments, the individualized inquiry will support a finding of disability in “virtually all cases.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3).

Section 1630.2(j) treats substantial limitation of a major life activity as a broad, non-demanding standard, and disability is not determined solely by the impairment's diagnosis.

Hunter v. Carl Buddig And Company · filed 2025-01-31(j)(1)(i)

Whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity is “ ‘not meant to be a demanding standard,’ and ‘shall be construed broadly in favor of expansive coverage.’ ” Frazier-Hill v. Chicago Transit Auth., 75 F.4th 797, 803 (7th Cir. 2023) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(i)); see also DePaoli v. Abbott Labs., 140 F.3d 668, 672 (7th Cir. 1998) (explaining that courts assess whether one qualifies as “disabled” under the ADA on a case-by-case basis). ... Accordingly, based on the additional facts in Hunter’s Second Amended Complaint, Hunter has established that she is disabled under the ADA.

The regulation identifies major life activities and measures whether an impairment substantially limits one of them relative to most people in the general population.

Donkor v. Weill Cornell Medical College · filed 2025-02-27(i)(1)(i), (j)(1)(ii)

EEOC regulations, which I may consider in deciding the instant motion, state that “major life activities include, but are not limited to, ‘caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, sleeping, concentrating, thinking, communicating, interacting with others, and working.’” ... The regulations also explain that whether an impairment “substantially limits” an individual’s major life activity is relative to “most people in the general population.”

Section 1630.2(j)(1) describes substantial limitation of a major life activity, and the court applied that standard to find that the plaintiff plausibly alleged a disability.

SCHULTZ v. INDIANA UNIVERSITY HEALTH, INC. · filed 2025-03-05(j)(1)

Schultz suffered from a condition that significantly limited her ability to "perform a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform." Steffen v. Donahoe, 680 F.3d 738, 746 (7th Cir. 2012) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1) (2007)). Thus, Schultz has adequately alleged a disability as defined by the ADA.

The regulation identifies walking, standing, sitting, reaching, lifting, bending, and working as major life activities and defines substantial limitation broadly, without requiring that an impairment prevent or severely restrict the activity.

Therault v. Town of Madison · filed 2025-04-22(i)(1), (j)(1)(2), (j)(2), and (j)(1)(i)

As relevant here, “major life activities” include “walking, standing, sitting, reaching, lifting, bending . . . and working.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i)(1). ... 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. 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)(1)(2). “To determine whether a major life activity is substantially limited by an impairment, we consider, among other factors, ‘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.’” Ibela v. Allied Universal, No. 21-1995-CV, 2022 WL 1418886, at *1 (2d Cir. May 5, 2022) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(2)). “The term ‘substantially limits’ shall be construed broadly in favor of expansive coverage, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA. ‘Substantially limits’ is not meant to be a demanding standard.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(i).

The regulation requires “substantially limits” to be construed broadly and as a non-demanding standard, but evidence still must show a substantial limitation of a major life activity.

Cavienss v. Norwak Transit · filed 2025-05-15(j)(1)(i)

The term “substantially limits” shall be construed broadly in favor of expansive coverage, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of the ADA. “Substantially limits” is not meant to be a demanding standard.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(i). ... Without more, such as an indication of frequency and severity, the fact that Cavienss’s Tourette Syndrome at times causes him to “involuntarily vocalize unwanted sounds or obscenities” does not meet the standard for substantial limitation of a major life activity.

Section 1630.2(j)(1)(i) concerns whether an impairment substantially limits major life activities; alleged impairments affecting sleep, breathing, and manual tasks may satisfy that threshold at the pleading stage.

Brikman v. Westchester Medical Center Advanced Physician Services, P.C. · filed 2025-08-13(j)(1)(i)

Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Plaintiff and in light of Plaintiff’s pro se status, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged, for purposes of a motion to dismiss, his disabilities caused him to suffer from “lack of sleep,” restricted “breathing” during bouts of severe anxiety; and caused him to struggle with “performing manual tasks” due to his cervical stenosis and alleged radiating nerve pain. (Id. ¶ 317; Pl. Br. at 22-23). Taken together these allegations may constitute substantial limitations on “major life activities.” Kopchik v. Town of E. Fishkill, New York, No. 18-1182-CV, 2018 WL 6767369, at *4 (2d Cir. Dec. 26, 2018) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(i)). At this stage, Plaintiff has plausibly alleged he has a disability under the ADA.

Section 1630.2 treats impairment and major-life-activity definitions broadly, so an episodic or non-severe condition can qualify as a disability when, based on an individualized comparison with the general population, it substantially limits seeing, breathing, sleeping, walking, or another major life activity.

Edwards v. Shelby Cnty., Tenn. · filed 2025-11-07(h)(1), (i)(1)(i), (j)(1)(i), (j)(1)(ii), (j)(1)(iv)

The ADA and its implementing regulations define “physical or mental impairment” broadly, including “[a]ny physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more body systems . . . .” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1). ... To qualify as a disability, such an impairment must “substantially limit” one or more major life activities. This determination is relative and is assessed by comparing the individual’s abilities to those of the general population. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii). The regulations clarify that an impairment “need not prevent, or significantly or severely restrict” performance of a major life activity to be considered substantially limiting. Id. ... And the ADA rejects categorical approaches to disability determinations and favors individualized evaluations of whether an impairment “substantially limits” a major life activity. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(iv). Such evaluations are fact-specific inquiries into how particular impairments affect particular life activities. See id.; id. § 1630.2(j)(1)(viii); id. § 1630.2(j)(4); see also, e.g., Morrissey v. Laurel Health Care Co., 946 F.3d 292, 300–01 (6th Cir. 2019) (engaging in fact-specific analysis); Andrews v. Tri Star Sports & Ent. Grp., Inc., No. 23-5700, 2024 WL 3888127, at *3–5 (6th Cir. Aug. 21, 2024) (same). ... We therefore conclude that Edwards introduced sufficient evidence for the jury reasonably to find that her night blindness qualified as a disability.

Section 1630.2(j) defines “substantially limits” broadly and requires comparison of how an individual performs a major life activity with most people in the general population, considering the conditions, manner, and duration of performance.

Lau · filed 2025-12-05(j)(1)(i), (j)(4)(i), (j)(1)(ii)

The Court acknowledges that “[t]he term substantially limits’ [is to] be construed broadly in favor of expansive coverage,” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(i), but Lau must still proffer evidence of how his dyslexia substantially limits a major life activity. General facts courts consider include “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” when “compared to most people in the general population.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(4)(i). ... While he states his dyslexia generally causes some difficulties with spelling, writing, reading, and comprehension, he does not show how his dyslexia “substantially limits [his] 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); see also Walters v. Shintech, Inc., No. CV 23-277, 2025 WL 918450, at *20 (M.D. La. Mar. 26, 2025) (“Plaintiff has not attested to any substantial limitations in major life activities as a result of her headaches, and she has therefore failed to establish a disability connected to her headaches.”). ... Because Lau has not shown how his dyslexia substantially limits a major life activity, he has not demonstrated a genuine dispute of material fact. As such, summary dismissal of his ADA claim is warranted, and Thrifty’s motion for summary judgment of that claim is GRANTED.

Section 1630.2(j)(1)(ii) requires an impairment to substantially limit an individual's ability to perform a major life activity compared with most people in the general population, and section 1630.2(i)(1)(i) identifies working, concentrating, standing, and walking as major life activities.

Dehaarte v. District of Columbia · filed 2026-05-11(j)(1)(ii), (i)(1)(i)

Plaintiff must, however, allege that the concussion “substantially limits [her] 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). In her opposition to Defendant’s motion, she alleges that her “medical condition”—which the undersigned understands to be her concussion—“substantially limits” her abilities to work, concentrate, stand, and walk. ECF No. 10 at 1. Those activities are included in the definition of “[m]ajor life activities” in the implementing regulations, and Defendant does not argue otherwise.

An impairment is substantially limiting only when it meaningfully limits a major life activity compared with most people in the general population; difficulty standing for a 12-hour shift, while being able to stand during a normal 8-hour workday, is insufficient.

Bullock · filed 2026-05-13(j)(1)(ii)

Preventing someone from standing for a 12-hour stretch is one thing, but a condition that would permit that same individual to stand during an otherwise normal 8-hour workday could not be considered by a reasonable jury to be a substantial limitation on a major life activity, and thus a disability within the law’s meaning, particularly as compared with most people in the general population. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii).

The regulation treats an impairment as a disability only when it substantially limits an individual's ability to perform a major life activity compared with most people in the general population, and not every impairment qualifies.

Patnaude · filed 2026-05-19(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. . . . [N]ot every impairment will constitute a disability.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii). Here, Patnaude alleges that he is “disabled,” but he does not allege any facts to establish that he has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. Thus, he has not plausibly alleged facts to establish the essential elements of an ADA claim.

Whether asthma substantially limits breathing, a major life activity, can present a genuine issue of material fact.

MacLean v. State Dept. of Educ. · filed 1999-08-27(j)

Here, as in Horvath, MacLean “has presented a genuine issue of material disputed fact whether [her] asthma substantially impaired [her] breathing,” which obviously is a major life activity.

Section 1630.2(j)(1)(iv) requires an individualized assessment of whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity.

Witt v. Bristol Farms · filed 2021-11-09(j)(1)(iv)

Determining whether an impairment is substantially limiting “requires an individualized assessment.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(iv). ... Assuming the truth of this claim, it is plausible that Witt’s chronic asthma substantially limits her breathing as compared to most people in the general population.

An allegation of disability must identify how the impairment substantially limits a major life activity; a bare label is insufficient.

Wallace v. Trumbull Memorial Hospital · filed 1997-07-29(j)

This in no way allows for determination of whether her “mental/emotional disability” qualifies as a disability under the ADA, that is, whether or not it substantially limits one or more of her major life activities.

A back impairment does not substantially limit working or manual tasks when the employee can perform the offered job and its associated tasks and offers no evidence of broader limitations beyond generalizations.

Gaston v. Jack Post Corp. · filed 1997-08-14(j)

In this court’s view, no reasonable jury could find that Gaston’s back condition places any kind of substantial limitation on her ability to work or perform manual tasks. Indeed, her own testimony is that she can work and perform the associated manual tasks in the job offered her by the company after her injury, and she offers no additional evidence, except generalizations, that she is otherwise substantially limited in performing any other manual tasks.

Under § 1630.2(j), limitations associated with epilepsy may be substantial when considered together, even if each limitation alone is minor.

Rowles v. Automated Production Systems, Inc. · filed 2000-03-29(j)

The court is mindful that taken individually, the limitations Plaintiff claims that he experiences in connection with his condition may not be particularly significant; however, viewed in their entirety, one could reasonably conclude that such limitations are substantial.