29 C.F.R. § 1630.2

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

Whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity depends on its nature and severity, duration, and long term impact.

Doyal v. Oklahoma Heart, Inc. · filed 2000-05-17(j)(2)

In determining whether she was significantly restricted in any of these four activities, we consider the following factors: (1) “[t]he nature and severity of the impairment;” (2) “[t]he duration or expected duration of the impairment;” and (3) “[t]he permanent or long term impact, or the expected permanent or long term impact of or resulting from the impairment.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(2).

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

Rivera v. Apple Industrial Corp. · filed 2001-03-30(j)

The regulations define "substantially limits” to mean "[ujnable to perform a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform” or "[s]ignificantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under which an individual can perform a particular major life activity as compared to the condition, manner, or duration under which the average person in the general population can perform that same major life activity.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A person is substantially limited in a major life activity when significantly restricted, compared with the average person, in the condition, manner, or duration of performing it.

Service v. Union Pacific Railroad · filed 2001-07-30(j)

To determine whether plaintiff is substantially limited in a major life activity, the court must assess whether he is significantly restricted, compared to the average person in the general population, as to the “condition, manner, or duration” under which he can perform that same major life activity. ... Based on the above, the court easily finds that genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether plaintiffs asthma substantially limited his major life activity of breathing.

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

Section 1630.2(j) identifies an impairment’s severity, duration, and long-term impact as factors in deciding whether it substantially limits a major life activity.

Norman v. Southern Guaranty Insurance · filed 2002-03-14(j)

To determine whether these activities are “substantially limited,” the regulations recommend that 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 be considered.

Law changed since The ADAAA (effective Jan. 1, 2009) generally requires assessing disability without the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures, including hearing aids.

Substantial limitation in hearing is assessed with the person's hearing aid and lip-reading ability; medical evidence may still create a triable issue.

Miller v. Taco Bell Corp. · filed 2002-05-15(j)(1)

While she is most certainly deaf and disabled (within the meaning of the ADA), when using no hearing aid, the court must consider Plaintiffs condition as she functions on a daily basis, that is, with the use of her hearing aid and lip reading. ... However, despite Plaintiffs ability to work, her treating physician has at least raised a triable issue of fact with respect to the substantial limitation issue. It is unclear, in the context of this motion for summary judgment, whether the way in which Plaintiff hears and communicates with others can be considered substantially limiting. For the purpose of this motion, therefore, the court holds that Plaintiff has set forth a prima facie case of disability and a triable issue of fact precludes summary judgment on the issue of whether or not Plaintiff is disabled.

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.

Subsection (j) defines when an impairment substantially limits a major life activity, including significant restrictions on how a person performs it.

Hodge v. Henry County Medical Center · filed 2003-10-03(j)

According to EEOC regulations, an individual is substantially limited in a major life activity where the individual 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] 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 CFR § 1630.2(j) (2001). ... The Court finds that Plaintiff has presented sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable jury to conclude that Crohn’s disease causes him to be substantially limited in the major life activities of eating and eliminating waste.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(j) measures whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity by the condition, manner, or duration in which a person performs it.

Daoud v. Avamere Staffing, LLC · filed 2004-09-21(j)

On this record, keeping in mind the fact-intensive nature of the inquiry, see Doe-bele, 342 F.3d at 1129, the court concludes there are material fact issues regarding whether plaintiff is “[significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration” in her performance of the major life activity of walking.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A person is substantially limited in a major life activity when an impairment significantly restricts the condition, manner, or duration of the activity compared with the average person.

Kim v. Potter · filed 2007-01-29(j)

To be substantially limited, the plaintiff must be “significantly restricted as to condition, manner or duration under which [she] can perform a particular major life activity as compared to the condition, manner or duration under which the average person in the general population can perform that same major life activity.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j); Toyota, 534 U.S. at 195, 122 S.Ct. 681.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A substantial limitation includes a significant restriction on a major life activity; walking unaided on one occasion does not rule out a substantial limitation on walking.

Wilson v. Haria and Gogri Corp. · filed 2007-03-22(j)

Such an event would not negate the fact that plaintiff's numerous medical conditions nevertheless constitute a substantial limitation on his ability to walk. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j) (defining substantial limitation as either a total inability to perform major life activity or a significant restriction on the same).

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

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

Duncan v. Harvey · filed 2007-03-28(j)(2)

In determining whether an individual is substantially limited in a major life activity, the regulations state that courts should consider: (1) the nature and severity of the impairment; (2) the duration or expected duration of the impairment; and (3) the permanent or long term impact of the impairment. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(2). ... Viewing the evidence in plaintiffs favor, the Court concludes that plaintiffs medical records, prior testimony, and affidavits create an issue of material fact as to whether the effects of her impairment were substantially limiting.

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

Section 1630.2(j)(1) measures substantial limitation by whether a person is unable or significantly restricted in performing a major life activity.

Matya v. Dexter Corp. · filed 2007-10-12(j)(1)

The record contains only general accounts of the effects of Matya’s depression, none of which demonstrate that Matya was “unable” or “significantly restricted” in his ability to perform the major life activities he identifies, see 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1), such that a reasonable trier of fact could conclude he was substantially limited.

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

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

RHJ Medical Center, Inc. v. City of DuBois · filed 2010-12-07(j)(2)

The EEOC guidelines counsel that the following factors should be considered in determining whether an individual is substantially limited: ... In many respects, the baseline prerequisite for opioid addicts gaining admission to a methadone clinic demands satisfaction of these requirements. ... In light of these facts, life activities impaired by an opioid addiction would almost certainly be substantial.

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)(2) considers the duration and long-term impact of an impairment when determining whether it substantially limits a major life activity.

Carper v. TWC SERVICES, INC. · filed 2011-10-07(j)(2)

Since Plaintiffs activity levels were minimally reduced for only a brief duration, with little or no long-term or permanent impact, they do not, as a matter of law, constitute the sort of limitation that rises to the level of a disability as contemplated by the Act.

Law changed since The ADA Amendments Act (effective Jan. 1, 2009) and the EEOC’s 2011 revision of § 1630.2(j) broadened the substantial-limitation inquiry; the earlier strict comparison no longer governs post-amendment claims.

Under the pre-2009 regulation, needing to change sitting positions every thirty minutes does not by itself substantially limit a major life activity.

Wehrley v. American Family Mutual Insurance · filed 2013-03-18(j)(1)

Finally, the fact that Plaintiff has to change positions every thirty minutes while sitting is not a substantial limitation, considering how few daily activities require prolonged sitting in one position.

Law changed since The ADA Amendments Act (effective Jan. 1, 2009) and the EEOC’s 2011 revision of § 1630.2(j) rejected the requirement that an impairment prevent or significantly restrict a major life activity.

A person is substantially limited when an impairment prevents or significantly restricts a major life activity; evidence of an impairment alone does not establish that limitation.

Ball v. LeBlanc · filed 2013-12-19(j)

“[T]o be substantially limited means to be unable to perform a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform, or to be significantly restricted in the ability to perform it.” ... Here, Plaintiffs simply failed to introduce evidence that their chronic diseases and/or medications impede their ability to perform major life activities.

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

Section 1630.2(m) requires the requisite job-related qualifications and ability to perform essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation, while § 1630.2(j) defines substantial limitation by inability or significant restriction in performing a major life activity.

Hites v. Patriot Homes, Inc. · filed 1995-11-07(m), (j)

“Qualified individual with a disability” is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8) as “an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires,” and the regulations promulgated by the Department of Labor to interpret the ADA further explain that the qualified individual with a disability is one who has the requisite skill, experience, education and other job-related requirements and who can, with or without reasonable accommodation, perform the essential functions of such position. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m). ... The EEOC regulations define “substantially limits” in 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j) as ... (l)(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. ... Thus, if plaintiffs knee injury renders him unable to perform one or more major life activities or significantly restricts his ability to do so, then his impairment is one which substantially limits him, and he is a qualified individual with a disability. ... Thus, this court is convinced there is no question that Hites’ knee injury does not substantially limit any of his major life activities and thus is not a disability under 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(A).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The regulation treats an impairment as substantially limiting a major life activity when it prevents or significantly restricts the activity compared with the general population, and an inability to perform one particular job alone does not substantially limit working; applying those standards, the court held that Rieger’s insomnia did not substantially limit sleeping or working.

Rieger v. Orlor, Inc. · filed 2006-03-29(j)(1), (j)(2), (j)(3)(i), (j)(3)(ii)

The regulations “make clear that ‘the inability to perform in a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working.’ ” ... In this case, by both plaintiffs own account and Dr. Dickinson’s diagnosis, plaintiff was not “significantly restricted” from “working” so long as her work week was reduced to 40-42 hours. ... Thus, plaintiff has not produced evidence from which reasonable jurors could conclude that her insomnia substantially limited her ability to engage in the activity of working so as to constitute a “disability” under the ADA.

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

Section 1630.2(j)(3)(ii) identifies the geographical area and the number and types of jobs from which an individual is disqualified as factors in deciding whether an impairment substantially limits the major life activity of working.

Rakity v. Dillon Companies, Inc. · filed 2002-08-29(j)(3)(ii)

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission also suggests evaluating the following additional factors when considering the major life activity of working: (A) The geographical area to which the individual has reasonable access; (B) The job from which the individual has been disqualified because of an impairment, and the number and types of jobs utilizing similar training, knowledge, skills or abilities, within that geographical area, from which the individual is also disqualified because of the impairment (class of jobs); and/or (C) The 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). 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(ii). ... Finally, Mr. Rakity has not provided a single document or record helpful in addressing his “vocational training, the geographical area to which he has access, or the number and type of jobs demanding similar training from which [he] would also be disqualified.” Bolton, 36 F.3d at 944.

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

The regulation treats a person 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, assessed against comparable workers and relevant geographic and vocational factors.

Nowlin v. K Mart Corp. · filed 1999-05-10(j)(1), (j)(2), (i), (j)(3), (j)(3)(ii)

An impairment “substantially limits” a major life activity if the individual is unable to perform the major life activity, or is significantly restricted in the ability to perform the major life activity compared to the general population. ... Whether plaintiff is substantially limited depends on the nature and severity of his impairment, its expected duration, and its expected permanent or long-term impact. ... Working is a major life activity. ... In addition to the factors set forth above, to determine if plaintiff is substantially limited in working, the court must consider whether plaintiff is “significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities.” ... Specifically, the court considers: ... Plaintiff has failed to submit competent evidence that he is unable to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes. ... Plaintiffs evidence fails to address the jobs available in the geographical area, the jobs requiring similar training, or his comparative vocational training, skills, and abilities. ... Plaintiff is not substantially limited in the major life activity of working.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For the major life activity of working, substantial limitation means a significant restriction compared with the average person's ability to perform a class or broad range of jobs; inability to perform one specific job or a narrow range does not suffice.

Zenor v. El Paso Healthcare System, Limited, Doing Business as Columbia Medical Center-East Columbia Medical Center- · filed 1999-05-24(j)(3)

In this context, “[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 one specific job or a narrow range of jobs does not constitute substantial limitation on one’s ability to work.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The regulation treats substantial limitation in working as a significant restriction on a broad class or range of jobs, directs consideration of specified evidence in identifying essential job functions, and encourages an informal interactive process concerning reasonable accommodation.

Cruz v. McAllister Bros., Inc. · filed 1999-05-17(j)(3)(i), (n)(3), (o)(3)

A person is substantially limited in the activity of working if he faces significant restrictions in his ability to perform “a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person” having comparable training, skill, and ability. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i); ... A court should also consider the employer’s judgment as to whether a function is essential; the amount of time spent on the job doing the specific function; any consequence of not requiring the employee to perform the function; the terms of a collective bargaining agreement; and the experience of individuals who have previously done or are currently doing the same job. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3); ... Employers are encouraged to engage in an informal interactive process with an employee with a disability who requests a reasonable accommodation. ... There may be situations in which an employer’s failure to engage in this process will constitute a failure to provide a reasonable accommodation in violation of the ADA.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(j)(3)(I) asks whether an impairment significantly restricts a person's ability to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs, and inability to perform one particular job is not enough.

Posey v. E I DuPont De Nemours · filed 1999-03-19(j)(3)(I)

Rather, the pertinent question in determining whether a plaintiff is substantially limited is whether that individual is significantly restricted in her ability to perform a "class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes, as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities." See Cline, 144 F.3d at 302 (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").

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(j)(3)(i) treats inability to perform a single particular job as insufficient to substantially limit the major life activity of working; the impairment must significantly restrict a class or broad range of jobs.

McKay v. Toyota Motor Manufacturing, U.S.A., Inc. · filed 1995-02-27(j)(3)(i)

In order to show that she is substantially limited in the major life activity of working, McKay must prove 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.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i). ... McKay has not established that she is significantly restricted in her ability to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to similarly-situated persons with comparable training, skills and abilities. Therefore, she is not substantially limited in the major life activity of working.

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 compared with the average person having comparable training, skills, and abilities; inability to perform one particular job is insufficient, and the listed geographic and job-category factors may be considered.

Ricks v. Xerox Corp. · filed 1995-02-14(j)(3)(i), (j)(3)(ii)

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). The inability to perform a single, particular job is insufficient.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(j)(3)(i) treats an impairment as substantially limiting the major life activity of working only when it significantly restricts the ability to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes, not merely one particular job.

Dutcher v. Ingalls Shipbuilding · filed 1995-06-05(j)(3)(i)

Thus, we conclude that Dutcher failed to provide summary judgment evidence that her impairment substantially limited a major life activity.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

An impairment substantially limits working only when it significantly restricts the ability to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes; inability to perform one job is insufficient, and total inability to work is unnecessary.

Smith v. Kitterman, Inc. · filed 1995-08-24(j)(3)

This Regulation makes clear that rejection from a single job for one employer would not constitute the relevant degree of limitation on working to fit within the definition of disabled, nor would an inability to perform a very specialized job or narrow range of jobs for any number of employers.

Law changed since The ADAAA (effective Jan. 1, 2009) and EEOC’s 2011 revision replaced the old significant or severe restriction test with a broad, nondemanding substantial-limitation standard. For actual disability based on working, the class or broad range of jobs inquiry remains. The 2011 EEOC revision removed former § 1630.2(j)(3)’s required geographic-area and local job-market factors; the class or broad range of jobs inquiry for working remains.

For a work-related impairment to substantially limit a person, § 1630.2(j)(3) requires a significant restriction from a class or broad range of jobs, evaluated using factors including geographical access and the types of jobs from which the person is disqualified.

Best v. Shell Oil Co. · filed 1995-12-15(j)(3)(ii)

Under the ADA and its accompanying regulations, there are specific considerations applicable to the determination of whether an impairment substantially limits the major life activity of working. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3). An individual must demonstrate a 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). ... It is plaintiffs burden to produce evidence regarding these factors. ... There is, however, no evidence in the record regarding plaintiffs training, his accessible geographical area, or the number and types of jobs demanding similar training from which plaintiffs perceived or recorded impairment would disqualify him. ... Because he has failed to do so, summary judgment is appropriate in Shell’s favor.

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) treats an impairment as substantially limiting the major life activity of working only when it significantly restricts a person from performing a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes, not merely one particular job.

Patrick v. Southern Co. Services · filed 1996-01-09(j)(3)

As the regulation makes clear, an impairment that prevents an individual from working at one particular job, because of circumstances or materials unique to that job, does not substantially limit that individual’s ability to work simply because (s)he cannot perform one particular job for one particular employer. ... Rather, An individual is substantially limited in working if (s)he is prevented or significant ly restricted (when compared to the average person having similar qualifications) from performing a class of jobs or a wide range of various jobs. ... These criteria, when read together, indicate that an impairment is a substantial limitation to working if it disqualifies An individual from a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes.

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

Section 1630.2 defines major life activities to include working and requires a substantial limitation to involve more than inability to perform a single job, with the impairment’s nature, duration, and long-term impact considered.

Mowat-Chesney v. Children's Hospital · filed 1996-03-05(i), (j)(2), (j)(3)(i)

Accordingly, because Chesney failed to produce evidence showing a significant restriction in her ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes, she is not “disabled” insofar as the “major life activity” of working is concerned.

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

Section 1630.2(j)(3)(i) treats working as substantially limited only when an impairment significantly restricts the ability to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes compared with a person of similar training, skills, and abilities; inability to work more than a normal 40-hour week alone is insufficient.

Duff v. Lobdell-Emery Manufacturing Co. · filed 1996-04-15(j)(3)(i)

With respect to the major life activity of 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." ... An inability to work more than the normal 40-hour week, without more, is not a substantial limitation on the major life activity of working.

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; inability to perform one particular job is insufficient.

Ellison v. Software Spectrum, Inc. · filed 1996-05-30(j)(3)(i)

As noted, an employer does not necessarily regard an employee as having a substantially limiting impairment simply because it believes she is incapable of performing a particular job; “[t]he statutory reference to a substantial limitation indicates instead that an employer regards an employee as [substantially limited] in his or her ability to work by finding the employee’s impairment to foreclose generally the type of employment involved”.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Mobley v. Board of Regents of University System of Georgia · filed 1996-04-01(j)

Under this prong of the ADA, the Court must inquire whether 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 with comparable training, skills and abilities. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j). The inability to perform a “single, particular job,” however, does not constitute a substantial limitation on the ability to work.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

An impairment substantially limits a major life activity only when it significantly restricts it; for working, the restriction must exclude the person from a class or broad range of jobs, not merely one particular job.

Schluter v. Industrial Coils, Inc. · filed 1996-06-14(j)(1), (j)(3)(I)

Plaintiff asserts that her poor vision substantially limits her in the major life activity of working but she has not shown that her vision works a “ ‘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.’ ” ... The inability to perform a particular job for a particular employer is insufficient: a plaintiff must show that she is “precluded from working generally.”

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

Section 1630.2(j)(1) treats an impairment as substantially limiting when it makes a person unable to perform a major life activity or significantly restricts how, when, or for how long the person can perform it compared with the average person.

Rogers v. International Marine Terminals, Inc. · filed 1996-07-14(j)(1)

Under the ADA, not all limitations are substantial; Rogers's difficulties with his ankle do not substantially limit him unless they render him (i) Unable to perform a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform; or (ii) Significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under which an individual can perform a particular major life activity as compared to the condition, manner, or duration under which the average person in the general population can perform the same major life activity. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1). In the instant case, there is no evidence that Rogers's impairment substantially limits his ability to stand and walk.

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 when an impairment significantly restricts access to a class or broad range of jobs, assessed in light of the impairment's nature, severity, duration, and long-term impact; inability to perform one particular job is insufficient.

Holland v. Chubb Am. Serv. Corp. · filed 1996-08-21(j)(1), (j)(2), and (j)(3)

To be considered substantially limited in the major life activity of working, an ADA plaintiff must present evidence of 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). However, "[t ]he inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working." Id. ... Plaintiff's evidence on this sub-element of the disability prong, although a very close case, is susceptible of differing interpretations and should therefore be presented before a jury.

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

Section 1630.2(h)(2) defines mental impairment, and § 1630.2(j)(2) requires considering the impairment’s nature and severity, duration, and long-term impact when deciding whether it substantially limits working.

Bunevith v. CVS Pharmacy · filed 1996-05-16(h)(2), (j)(2)

A mental impairment is defined by ADA regulations as “[a]ny mental or psychological disorder, such as mental retardation, organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and specific learning disabilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(2). ... To determine whether Bunevith’s disability substantially limited his ability to work, the Court must consider. 1) the nature and severity of his impairment, 2) the duration or expected duration of his impairment, and 3) the permanent or long-term impact, or the expected permanent long-term impact, of or resulting from his impairment. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(2).

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

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

Soileau v. Guilford of Maine, Inc. · filed 1996-06-10(j)(3)(i)

Because Soileau fails to provide evidence showing a significant restriction in his “ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes,” the Court grants Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs claims that he is disabled under subsection (A).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Valentine v. American Home Shield Corp. · filed 1996-08-30(j)(3)(i)

The regulations further provide 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). Rather, a person claiming a disability must show that the impairment “significantly restrict[s] [his or 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.” ... Thus, an impairment or condition that affects “only a narrow range of jobs” is not considered as reaching a major life activity nor as substantially limiting one.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Burbank v. City of Idaho Falls, a Municipal Corporation · filed 1996-09-11(j)(3)(i)

The regulations define substantially limited in 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.... The inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation." 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i). The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to Burbank, shows only that defendant regarded Burbank as unable to be a patrol police officer, a professional pilot, and a lab technician. Aside from the fact that Burbank presents no evidence that he is qualified to be a lab technician or a professional pilot, this is not a "broad range of jobs in various classes."

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

Section 1630.2(j) treats a substantial limitation as a significant restriction measured against how the average person performs the same major life activity.

Burnett v. Western Resources, Inc. · filed 1996-06-19(j)

significantly restricted as to condition, manner or duration under which an individual can perform a particular major life activity as compared to the condition, manner, or duration under which the average person in the general population can perform that same major life activity.

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

Section 1630.2(j)(3)(i) treats a person as substantially limited in working only when significantly restricted in performing a class or broad range of jobs, not merely unable to perform one particular job.

Robinson v. Neodata Services · filed 1996-08-30(j)(3)(i)

"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).

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 impairment as substantially limiting the major life activity of working when it significantly restricts a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs, assessed using the impairment’s nature, severity, duration, and long-term impact; the court held Garza disabled under that standard.

Garza v. Abbott Laboratories · filed 1996-09-12(j)(2), (j)(3)(i)

Applying the standards of 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j), it is clear that Garza is disabled.

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

The regulation requires significant restriction in the ability to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs, and inability to perform only one particular job is not a substantial limitation in working.

Nedder v. Rivier College · filed 1996-09-03(j)(3)(i)

To be considered substantially limited in the major life activity of working, an ADA plaintiff must present evidence of 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). However, “[t]he inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working.” ... Plaintiffs undisputed testimony is that she was able to perform her job. ... Since she retained the ability to perform her work in general, plaintiff has failed to show that her obesity substantially limited her ability to work. ... The court therefore finds and herewith rules that the plaintiff has failed to produce evidence sufficient to show that she is substantially limited with respect to working.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The subsection treats inability to perform one particular job as insufficient; substantial limitation in working requires significant restriction from a class or broad range of jobs compared with similarly trained people.

Gilbert v. Storage Technology Corporation, a Delaware Corporation · filed 1996-10-11(j)(3)(I)

Plaintiff clearly did not show a 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." Bolton, (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(I)). Indeed, plaintiff made no attempt whatsoever to establish that his asthma interfered with his ability to work other than his experience at defendant's Longmont facility. Plaintiff's asthma has not affected his ability to perform any of his previous jobs. Inability to perform a particular job for a particular employer is not sufficient to establish a handicap; the impairment must substantially limit employment generally. Bolton, 36 F.3d at 944 (affirming grant of summary judgment).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For the major life activity of working, a substantial limitation requires a significant restriction on the ability to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes.

Weiler v. Household Finance Corporation · filed 1996-11-27(j)(3)(i)

Rather, with respect to the major life activity of working, "substantially limits" must mean significantly restricts the ability to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The regulation treats working as a major life activity, but an inability to perform one particular job is not a substantial limitation; the impairment must significantly restrict access to a class or broad range of jobs.

Gerdes v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc. · filed 1996-12-02(i), (j)(3)(i), (j)(3)(ii)

As defined in 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i), the phrase “major life activities” means “functions such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working,” 29 C.F.R;. § 1630.2(i). The regulations further provide 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). Rather, a person claiming a disability must show that the impairment “significantly restriet[s] [his or 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.”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(j) treats a person as substantially limited in working when an impairment significantly restricts work in a class or broad range of jobs; § 1630.2(o)(2)(ii) recognizes reassignment to a vacant position as a possible reasonable accommodation, subject to the employee’s qualifications and an available position.

Cochrum v. Old Ben Coal Company · filed 1996-12-17(j), (o)(2)(ii)

"Substantially limits" means that the person is either unable to perform a major life function or is "significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration" under which the individual can perform a particular major life function, as compared to the average person in the general population. 29 C.F.R. at 1630.2(j). ... An individual is substantially limited in working if the individual is significantly restricted in the ability to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes,.... For example, an individual who has a back condition that prevents the individual from performing any heavy labor job would be substantially limited in the major life activity of working,.... This would be so even if the individual were able to perform jobs in another class. ... "[R]eassignment to a vacant position" is another possible accommodation under the ADA. See 42 U.S.C. § 12111(9)(B); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(2)(ii). In Gile v. United Airlines, Inc., 95 F.3d 492 (7th Cir.1996), we recently recognized "that the ADA may require an employer to reassign a disabled employee to a different position as reasonable accommodation where the employee can no longer perform the essential functions of their current position." Id. at 498. In Gile, we qualified that general rule by "emphasiz[ing] that, along with the other requirements a disabled employee must meet under the ADA to be entitled to reasonable accommodation, there are significant limitations on an employer's potential obligation to reassign a disabled employee as reasonable accommodation," including that "[t]he ADA may only require an employer to reassign a disabled employee to a position for which the employee is otherwise qualified." Id. at 499.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(j)(3) defines a substantial limitation in working as a significant restriction on the ability to perform a class or broad range of jobs, and § 1630.2(j)(2)(ii) makes the duration of the impairment relevant to that determination.

Potvin v. Champlain Cable Corp. · filed 1996-10-18(j)(3), (j)(2)(ii)

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which employs identical language, see 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2) (Supp. II 1990), “substantially limits” has been 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) (1995). ... The duration of an impairment is relevant to whether an impairment is substantially limiting. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(2)(ii).

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.

Under the regulation, being unable or regarded as unable to perform one particular job is not a substantial limitation establishing a disability under the ADA.

Motichek v. Buck Kreihs Co., Inc. · filed 1996-11-18(l)(3)

Likewise, being regarded as unable to perform the duties of a single, particular job falls short of the ADA’s criteria for estabhshing that an individual has a “disability” under 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(C) and 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(l)(3).

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 and requires an impairment to substantially limit the condition, manner, or duration of work compared with the average person, considering the impairment's severity, duration, and long-term impact.

Knox v. Brundidge Shirt Corp. · filed 1996-10-16(j)

Work is a major life activity. 29 C.F.R. Pt. 1630, App. § 1630.2®. Knox is substantially limited in her ability to work if she is restricted as to the condition, manner, or duration under which she can work, as compared with an average person in the community. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2®. The factors considered in determining if an impairment is substantially limiting include “(1) the nature and severity of the impairment, (2) the duration or expected duration of the impairment, and (3) the permanent or long term impact of, or the expected permanent or long term impact of, or resulting from, the impairment.”

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

Section 1630.2(j)(3)(i) treats an individual 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 a similarly trained person.

Wild v. Minntech Corp. · filed 1999-08-13(j)(3)(i)

An individual is substantially limited in his work under the ADA if the injury "significantly restrict[s]" 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." Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc., --- U.S. ---, 119 S.Ct. 2133, 2138 (1999) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i) (1998)). The Supreme Court has construed this regulation to require that a successful ADA plaintiff show that he or she cannot perform a class of jobs. See id. at ---, 119 S.Ct. at 2138; see also Aucutt, 85 F.3d at 1319 (holding that deficient performance on a physical test for one security guard employer did not demonstrate that the plaintiff was substantially limited in working as a security guard generally); Wooten v. Farmland Foods, 58 F.3d 382, 386 (8th Cir. 1995) (holding that plaintiff's impairments, which prevented him from performing a narrow range of meat packing jobs, did not qualify as a substantial limitation).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2 treats working as a major life activity and defines substantial limitation in working as a significant restriction from a class or broad range of jobs, not merely one particular job.

Doren v. Battle Creek Health System · filed 1999-08-18(j)(3)(i)

Under the Act, working qualifies as a “major life activity.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2®. With respect to 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. The inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working. ... Similarly, Doren’s present job does not require her to work with adult patients. ... Doren was not qualified to work on the adult floor of a hospital. Therefore, testimony regarding her inability to work with adult patients cannot establish that she is unable to perform many positions in the field of nursing. ... Additionally, Doren failed to produce any evidence regarding the number of pediatrics nursing jobs from which she is excluded or the availability of pediatric nursing positions for which she is qualified. ... Doren has a number of physical limitations, but she has not presented sufficient evidence of a disability under the Act.

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 in various classes; inability to perform one particular job is insufficient.

Broussard v. University of California, at Berkeley, Office of Laboratory Animal Care · filed 1999-09-20(j)(3)(i)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For the major life activity of working, § 1630.2(j)(3)(i) defines a substantial limitation as a significant restriction in the ability to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes compared with the average person having comparable training, skills, and abilities.

Mullins v. Crowell · filed 1999-09-21(j)(3)(i)

“When referring to the major life activity of working, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) defines ‘substantially limits’ 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.’ ”

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Subsection (j) requires a significant restriction in the ability to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs, compared with a person having comparable training, skills, and abilities, to establish a substantial limitation in working.

Wellington v. Lyon County School District · filed 1999-08-23(j)

To show a substantial limitation on his ability to work, Wellington 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)@X0.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(j)(3)(i) requires a substantial limitation in working to significantly restrict a person from a class or broad range of jobs, so inability to perform one particular job is not enough.

Tone v. United States Postal Service · filed 1999-09-27(j)(3)(i)

When the major life activity at issue is working, the Act requires the use of a specialized definition of “substantially limits.” The regulations require that an 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 ability.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i). An inability to perform a single, particular job does not create a substantial limitation on an individual’s major life activity of working.

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

Section 1630.2(j) defines “substantially limits” by comparing the individual's ability to perform a major life activity with that of the average person and considering the impairment's nature, severity, duration, and long-term impact.

McCleary v. National Cold Storage, Inc. · filed 1999-09-30(j)

As provided by the EEOC regulations, “sub stantially limits” means “[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 life activity.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j).

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

Section 1630.2(j)(3)(i) requires a significant restriction in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes, compared with the average person, to substantially limit the major life activity of working.

Dunegan v. City of Council Grove, Kansas Water Department · filed 1999-11-30(j)(3)(i)

A psychiatric impairment qualifies as a disability under the ADA only if the impairment substantially limits the plaintiffs major life activities or is regarded by the employer as doing so. As stated previously, for an impairment to substantially limit the major life activity of working, the plaintiff must be “significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i). The only medical evidence offered by plaintiff with respect to her impairment restricting her work comes from Dr. Shelton. He indicated only that plaintiff had trouble working around Masters, not men in general. Plaintiff has demonstrated only that she could not perform under the supervision of Masters. The inability to perform only these jobs is too narrow to constitute a “class of jobs.” Accordingly, we find that the City is entitled to summary judgment on this claim.

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

Section 1630.2(j)(2)(i)-(iii) directs consideration of an impairment’s nature, duration, and long-term impact, while § 1630.2(j)(3)(i) defines substantial limitation in working as significant restriction from a class or broad range of jobs, not inability to perform one particular job.

Goodwin-Haulmark v. Menninger Clinic, Inc. · filed 1999-12-07(j)(2)(i)-(iii), (j)(3)(i)

The regulations dictate three factors that should be considered in determining whether an individual is substantially limited in a major life activity: “(i) The nature and severity of the impairment; (ii) The duration or expected duration of the impairment; and (iii) The permanent or long term impact, or the expected permanent or long term impact of or resulting from the impairment.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(2)(i)-(iii). The regulations go on to define “substantially limited” with respect 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 C.F.R. § 1630.2(3)(i).

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

Section 1630.2 treats working as a major life activity and requires a significant restriction on performing a class or broad range of jobs; inability to perform one particular job is not enough.

Vass v. Riester & Thesmacher Co. · filed 2000-01-06(j)(3)(i)

Under the ADA regulations, “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). A person is substantially limited in the major life activity of working if she or 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).

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 a significant restriction in a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs, not merely an inability to perform one particular job for one employer.

Lawson v. CSX Transportation, Inc. · filed 1999-12-20(j)(3)(i)

An impairment is not a disability within the meaning of the ADA if it merely renders an individual unable to perform a particular job for a particular employer.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

A physical impairment substantially limits working only when it significantly restricts the ability to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs, compared with an average person with comparable training, skills, and abilities.

Williamson v. International Paper Co. · filed 2000-01-27(j)(3)(i)

In order for a physical impairment to substantially limit the major life activity of working, the impairment must significantly restrict 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).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(j)(3) requires an impairment to significantly restrict the ability to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs, rather than merely preventing performance of one particular job, to substantially limit the major life activity of working.

Molina v. MAI Del Caribe, Inc. · filed 2000-02-14(j)(3)

In fact, plaintiff has failed to produce any evidence to support a finding that this illness satisfies the requirements of 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3), and instead he has simply rested on the assertion that he has a physical impairment and that he is therefore disabled within the meaning of ADA.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The regulation defines substantial limitation in working as a significant restriction in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes.

Godron v. Hillsborough Cty. et al. · filed 2000-03-21(j)(3)(i)

While the ability to work at all can qualify as a major life activity, the ability to work the third shift plainly is not. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i) (1999) (finding that working is “substantially limited” only 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 . . . ” ) ; see also Tardie v . Rehabilitation Hosp. of Rhode Island, 168 F.3d 538, 542 (1st Cir. 1999) (finding that inability to work more than 40 hours per week did not substantially limit major life activity of working).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Under § 1630.2(j)(1), a substantial limitation in working requires inability or significant restriction compared with the average person, and inability to perform one particular job is insufficient; the claimant must show limitation across a broad range or class of jobs.

Sinkler v. Midwest Property Management Limited Partnership · filed 2000-04-06(j)(1)

In the context of the major life activity of working, “ ‘ [substantially limits’ means that a person is either ‘[u]nable to perform a major life activity’ or is ‘significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration’ under which the individual can perform the major life activity as compared to the average person in the general population.” ... However, “an inability to perform a particular job for a particular employer” is insufficient to establish substantial limitation. ... While we note that substantial limitation must be measured by considering Sinkler’s particular impairment to determine whether it constituted a significant barrier to her employment, taking her unique circumstances into account, ... Sinkler has the burden of presenting evidence to identify how her impairment limited an entire class or broad range of jobs.

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 or broad range of jobs; inability to perform one particular job is insufficient.

Sweeney v. Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Board · filed 2000-04-17(j)(3)(i)

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

Section 1630.2(j) directs courts to consider the impairment's nature, duration, and long-term impact when deciding whether it substantially limits a major life activity, and subsection (j)(3) requires inability to perform a class or broad range of jobs when working is the activity.

Land v. Midwest Office Technology, Inc. · filed 2000-07-07(j), (j)(3)

The term “substantially limits” is defined by 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j). That section lists three factors to consider in determining whether an individual is substantially limited in a major life activity: “The nature and severity of the impairment; (ii) The duration or expected duration of the impairment; and (iii) The permanent or long term impact, or the expected permanent or long term impact of or resulting from the impairment.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.20X2). ... Furthermore, plaintiff makes no showing that she was unable to perform a wide range of jobs in various classes, or a class of jobs, as is required under the ADA. ... 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3) (when the major life activity is working, a substantial limitation entails an inability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes).

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) defines substantial limitation in working by reference to significant restriction in a class or broad range of jobs compared with a similarly trained person, and excludes inability to perform only one particular job.

Deppe v. United Airlines · filed 2000-07-11(j)(3)(i) and (ii)

With respect to working, “substantially limited” means that one is “significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities.” ... The regulations further specify that “the inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working.” ... This conflicting testimony, when considered with the essentially unchallenged permanent and stationary medical limitations, could lead a rational trier of fact to conclude that those responsible for the termination regarded Deppe as significantly restricted in his ability to perform a broad range of jobs in various classes, as compared to others with comparable levels of skill, training, and experience.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Moore v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., D/B/A J.B. Hunt Driver Training Center · filed 2000-07-19(j)(3)(i)

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

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

For the major life activity of working, a person is substantially limited only if unable to perform a class or broad range of jobs; inability to perform one particular job is insufficient, and geographic access and comparable jobs are relevant factors.

Harshbarger v. Sierra Pacific Power Co. · filed 2000-09-20(j)(3)(i)(1998), (j)(ii)(A)

The EEOC further identifies several factors that courts should consider when determining whether an individual is substantially limited in the major life activity of working, including the geographical area to which the individual has reasonable access, and “the number and types of jobs utilizing similar training, knowledge, skills or abilities, within the geographical area, from which the individual is also disqualified.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(ii)(A),(B). To be substantially limited in the major life activity of working, then, one must be precluded from more than one type of job, a specialized job, or a particular job of choice.

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

The regulation defines substantial limitation in working by comparing the person's ability to perform a class or broad range of jobs with that of an average person and requires consideration of the person's geographic access to comparable jobs.

Ladenheim v. American Airlines, Inc. · filed 2000-08-28(j)(3)(i), (j)(3)(ii)(A)

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 (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 a class or broad range of jobs, not merely from one particular job.

Buskirk v. Apollo Metals · filed 2000-09-15(j)(3)(i)

When analyzing this type of claim, a court must determine if the plaintiff is “significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Whitney v. Greenberg, Rosenblatt, Kull & Bitsoli, P.C. · filed 2000-09-21(j)(3)(i)

The mere “inability to perform a single particular job” will not suffice to establish a substantial limitation with respect to working. ... Whitney has presented no evidence that her deficits significantly restricted her ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes. ... She does not show that her impairment substantially limited her 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 in performing a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes compared with a person of comparable training, skills, and abilities.

Gray v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Inc. · filed 2001-01-05(j)(3)(i)

“With respect to the major life activity of 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.’ ” ... Gray’s only evidence of any limits on his activities is that he has to take additional medicine for his diabetic condition and that he has to avoid strenuous activity, although he can walk. ... However, no ... reasonable trier of fact could find that these restrictions “substantially limit” one or more of Gray’s “major” life activities, particularly in light of Gray’s own admissions during his deposition: ... Gray’s need to return to the doctor for additional blood tests and to take medication for his diabetes does not, by itself, permit a finding that Gray was disabled. ... Moreover, the fact that Gray has to avoid some unspecified “strenuous activity” except for walking is not a “substantial” limitation of a “major” life activity. ... Because Gray has not raised a genuine issue of material fact that his diabetes substantially limited one of his major life activities, his ADA claim fails.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(j)(3)(i) explains that substantially limiting work means being significantly restricted in performing a class or broad range of jobs, and excludes inability to perform only one particular job.

Lockard v. General Motors Corp. · filed 2001-01-16(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 Same change as noted above.

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

Eber v. Harris County Hospital District · filed 2001-02-01(j)(3)(i)

“ ‘[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.’ ” ... Thus, while Eber’s condition may have caused him some difficulty, he has not demonstrated that in September 1997 he had an impairment that substantially limited a major life activity, including the activity of working. Stated simply, Eber has not shown that he had a disability cognizable under the ADA when employed by HCHD.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(j)(3) treats an impairment as substantially limiting the major life activity of working only when it significantly restricts the ability to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes compared with similarly trained people.

Horwitz v. L & J.G. Stickley, Inc. · filed 2000-11-30(j)(3)

As to the major life activity of working, there is no evidence that Plaintiff was 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.

Law changed since The ADAAA (effective Jan. 1, 2009) and EEOC’s 2011 revision replaced the old significant or severe restriction test with a broad, nondemanding substantial-limitation standard. For actual disability based on working, the class or broad range of jobs inquiry remains. The 2011 EEOC revision removed former § 1630.2(j)(3)’s required geographic-area and local job-market factors; the class or broad range of jobs inquiry for working remains.

To show that an impairment substantially limits working, an individual must demonstrate a significant restriction from performing either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes, considering the listed impairment, duration, impact, geographic-access, and job-range factors.

Barker v. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. · filed 2001-02-01(j)(2), (j)(3)(ii), (j)(3)(i)

The regulations recommend that the following factors be considered in determining whether an individual is substantially limited in a major life activity: “(i) [t]he nature and severity of the impairment; (ii)[t]he duration or expected duration of the impairment; and (iii)[t]he permanent or long term impact, or the expected permanent or long term impact of or resulting from the impairment.” ... At best, Barker’s evidence shows only his disqualification from a single position, or narrow range of jobs. ... Considering the number of jobs Barker admits he was qualified for, the actual jobs be accepted, and his apparent abilities to perform these jobs, the court finds Barker has failed to produce evidence demonstrating that he is significantly restricted from performing either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes.

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

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

Cash v. Smith · filed 2000-11-01(j)(3)(i)

In order for Cash to establish that APCO regarded her as substantially limited in her ability to work, she must prove that APCO considered her 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."

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

The regulation defines substantial limitation in working by whether the impairment significantly restricts access to a class or broad range of jobs, considering factors such as the accessible geographic area and the jobs from which the person is disqualified.

Kellogg v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, a Corporation · filed 2000-12-04(j)(3)(i), (j)(3)(ii)

According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), 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.” ... Other considerations include: (A) the geographical area to which the individual has reasonable access; (B) the job from which the individual has been disqualified because of the impairment and the class of similar jobs from which the individual also is disqualified because of the impairment; and/or (C) the job from which the individual has been disqualified and the broad range of jobs in various classes from which the individual also is disqualified because of the impairment.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

This provision defines substantial limitation in working as a significant restriction on performing a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs, rather than a single job.

Simms v. City of New York · filed 2001-02-26(j)(3)(i)

In analyzing the major life activity of working, substantial limitation is defined as a 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). Therefore, a plaintiff must be regarded as precluded from more than one particular job to be deemed disabled under this section.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Section 1630.2(j)(3)(i) provides that being unable to perform one particular job is not a substantial limitation in working; substantial limitation requires a significant restriction in performing a class or broad range of jobs.

Tricarico Jr v. Marion General Hospital Inc · filed 2021-09-08(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, 119 S.Ct. 2139, 144 L.Ed.2d 450 (1999). Because Burnett has failed to show (or to even attempt to show) that his [alleged disability] substantially limited his ability to perform a class or broad range of jobs, he has not established a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

Moore v. U.S. Postal Service · filed 2022-02-17(j)(3)(i)

The ADA defines “disability” as, inter alia, “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of [a person's] major life activities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(A). A person is substantially limited 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); 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 significant restriction in performing a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes compared with a similarly trained and skilled person.

Garafola v. United States Postal Service · filed 2022-09-30(j)(3)

When a plaintiff asserts that their impairment substantially limits “working,” the plaintiff must establish that the impairment “substantially limit[s] employment generally.” Frost v. Dep’t of Developmental Servs., No. 3:19-CV-1572, 2022 WL 462409, at *5 (D. Conn. Feb. 14, 2022) (citing Joyce v. Suffolk Cnty., 911 F. Supp. 92, 95 (E.D.N.Y. 1996) (quotation and citations omitted)). In this context of “working,” “‘substantially limit[ed]’ 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.” Potenza v. City of New York, 95 F. App’x 390, 391 (2d Cir. 2004) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3) and Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 491–92 (1999).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

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

McClure v. Ei Du Pont Nemours and Company d/b/a Corteva Agriscience · filed 2025-06-20(j)(3)(i)

Consistent with federal law applying the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), we have long recognized that “[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.’ ” Id. (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i) (1997)).

Law changed since The ADA Amendments Act (effective Jan. 1, 2009) removed the need to show a perceived substantial limit for a regarded-as claim; the single-job inquiry still governs actual disability based on working.

An inability to perform one particular job does not substantially limit the major life activity of working; an employer's belief that someone cannot perform that job alone does not establish that it regards the person as disabled.

Smith v. City of Des Moines · filed 1996-11-12(j)(3)(i)

We also held, however, that "'working' does not mean working at a particular job of that person's choice" and recognized that "[a]n impairment that disqualifies a person from only a narrow range of jobs is not considered a substantially limiting one." Id. at 386 (quotation omitted); see also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i) (1996) ("The inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working."). ... Smith's claim fails for the same reasons that Wooten's did. ... But Smith does not suggest that the city believed he was unable to perform other jobs, and he has presented no evidence to support that proposition.

Law changed since The ADA Amendments Act (effective Jan. 1, 2009) broadened the substantial-limitation test, and the EEOC’s 2011 revision ended the former strict duration and impact factors.

A claimed medication-induced inability to stay awake at work does not substantially limit working without evidence that the person’s condition required a combination of medications that persistently caused the drowsiness.

Hill v. Kansas City Area · filed 1999-07-01(j)(3)

But we find no evidence in the record that Hill’s physical condition compelled her to take a combination of medications that persistently affected her ability in 1995 to stay awake on the job. Therefore, she failed to present sufficient evidence that this alleged physical impairment substantially limited her major life activity of working. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3).

Law changed since The ADA Amendments Act (effective Jan. 1, 2009) and the EEOC’s 2011 revision permit short impairments to qualify when substantially limiting; short duration alone no longer excludes them.

Temporary, non-chronic impairments of short duration usually do not substantially limit the ability to work.

Baffoe v. W.H. Stewart Co. · filed 2000-04-24(j)

Such impairments are usually not classified as disabilities under the ADA because they do not impose a substantial limitation on the ability to work.

Law changed since The ADA Amendments Act (effective Jan. 1, 2009) removed the class-of-jobs showing for a regarded-as claim; that inquiry remains for actual disability based on working.

An employer regards an applicant as substantially limited in working when it perceives the applicant as unable to perform a broad class of jobs.

Rodriguez v. Conagra Grocery Prod · filed 2006-01-10(j)(3)(i)

This summary judgment evidence shows beyond cavil, as a matter of law, that ConAgra regarded Rodriguez’s diabetes as substantially limiting his ability to engage in the major life activity of working.

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

When working is the major life activity at issue, an employee must be regarded as unable to work in a class or broad range of jobs to be substantially limited.

Joshua Liam Josephs, AKA Joshua Liam Joesphs, Joshua Liam Josepths v. Pacific Bell, Does, 1-30, Inclusive · filed 2006-04-10(j)(3)(i)

Under the ADA, when the "major life activity" that is "substantially limit[ed]" is working, the employee must be regarded as unable to work in a "class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities." 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i).

Law changed since Same change as noted above.

Inability to perform a single job does not substantially limit the major life activity of working, including when an employer regards a person as unable to perform that job.

Smith v. City of Des Moines, Iowa · filed 1997-01-02(j)(3)(i)

Smith's claim fails for the same reasons that Wooten's did. Viewing the record in the light most favorable to Smith, we see that the city regarded Smith as unable to perform the duties of a firefighter. But Smith does not suggest that the city believed he was unable to perform other jobs, and he has presented no evidence to support that proposition. ... Smith failed to create a genuine issue of fact as to whether the city regarded him as having a disability for purposes of the ADA, and the District Court properly granted summary judgment on this claim.