29 C.F.R. § 1630.2

Section 1630.2(h)(1) defines a physical impairment as a physiological disorder or condition affecting one or more listed body systems, so obesity qualifies only when it results from a physiological condition.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Watkins Motor Lines, Inc. · filed 2006-09-12(h)(1)

An "impairment," for purposes of the ADA, is any "physiological disorder, or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more of [various] body systems." 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1). ... Thus, consistent with the EEOC's own definition, we hold that to constitute an ADA impairment, a person's obesity, even morbid obesity, must be the result of a physiological condition.

Section 1630.2(h)(2) defines physical or mental impairment to include mental or psychological disorders, including mental illness and specific learning disabilities.

Burke v. North Dakota Department of Correction & Rehabilitation · filed 2009-06-05(h)(2)

The ADA’s regulations define “physical or mental impairment” as including “[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).

Section 1630.2(h)(1) defines a physical or mental impairment as any physiological disorder or condition affecting one or more body systems.

Upchurch v. Mount Carmel Health System · filed 2012-09-04(h)(1)

The ADA and applicable federal regulations “define ‘physical or mental impairment’ as ‘any physiological disorder, or condition’ affecting one or more of various body systems.”

Section 1630.2(h) defines a physical impairment to include any physiological disorder or condition affecting the respiratory or cardiovascular systems.

Burton v. Freescale Semiconductor, Inc., et · filed 2015-08-10(h)

A qualifying “impairment” includes “[a]ny physiological disorder or condition” that affects, among other body systems, respiratory and cardiovascular systems. Dutcher v. Ingalls Shipbuilding, 53 F.3d 723, 726 n.5 (5th Cir. 1995) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)).

Section 1630.2(h) defines a physical impairment as a physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more body systems.

Garcia-Hicks v. Vocational Rehabilitation Administration · filed 2015-11-30(h)

The EEOC, clarifying the ADA, defines physical impairment as “[a]ny physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more body systems, such as neurological, musculoskeletal, ... [and] circulatory..,.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h).

Section 1630.2(h)(1) treats obesity as a physical impairment only when it is a physiological disorder or condition that affects one or more major body systems.

Melvin Morriss, III v. BNSF Railway Company · filed 2016-04-05(h)(1)

Under the plain language of this definition, obesity is not a physical impairment unless it is a physiological disorder or condition and it affects a major body system.

Section 1630.2(h)(1) defines a physical impairment as a physiological disorder or condition affecting one or more body systems; the court held that obesity is not a physical impairment unless it meets that definition.

Valtierra v. Medtronic Inc. · filed 2017-02-03(h)(1)

Pursuant to controlling ADA regulations, a “physical impairment” is “[a]ny physiological disorder or condition ... affecting one or more body systems,” such as neurological, musculoskele-tal, respiratory, reproductive, digestive, immune, or circulatory. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1). Thus, according to the controlling regulation, obesity is not a physical impairment unless it is a physiological disorder or condition and it affects a major body system. See, e.g., Morriss, 817 F.3d at 1108.

Section 1630.2(h)(1) defines an impairment broadly to include any physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more body systems.

Eeoc v. Bnsf Railway Company · filed 2018-08-29(h)(1)

By regulation, the EEOC has defined an impairment as “[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). ... As a result, we construe “perceived impairment,” which forms part of the definition of “disability,” broadly.

A physical impairment includes a physiological disorder or condition affecting one or more body systems, and a knee injury can qualify even without medical evidence when a lay jury can recognize it.

Mancini v. City of Providence · filed 2018-11-21(h)

Applicable regulations define physical impairment as 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). ... In our view, a knee injury falls within that universe. We hold, therefore, that at the summary judgment stage, medical evidence was not required to establish that Mancini's knee injury constituted an impairment. In other words, a lay jury could find, on this record, that Mancini had a physical impairment — a knee injury — within the meaning of the ADA.

Section 1630.2 treats a physiological condition affecting one or more body systems as a physical or mental impairment for purposes of ADA coverage.

HARTLEY v. THE BOEING COMPANY · filed 2019-09-30(b)

A “[p]hysical or mental impairment” is “[a]ny physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more body systems[.]” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2. ... Defendant regarded Plaintiff as having a back problem that disqualified her from being a firefighter, i.e. it regarded her as have a “physiological … condition … affecting one or more body systems.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2. ... All that matters is whether Boeing perceived Plaintiff to have a physiological condition impacting one or more body systems, and, as explained above, Plaintiff produced sufficient evidence for a jury to find Defendant did. Under the “regarded as” prong, Plaintiff thus qualifies as disabled.

Section 1630.2(h) defines physical impairment to include a physiological condition affecting a body system, including the special sense organs involved in vision.

Babb v. Maryville Anesthesiologists, P.C. · filed 2019-11-06(h)

This is more than enough evidence from which a reasonable juror could find that, in January 2016, Maryville genuinely believed Babb had a “physiological . . . condition” affecting one of her “body systems,” namely, her vision. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h) (noting that the term “body system” includes “special sense organs”); accord Baum, 764 F. App’x at 547.

Under subsection (h)(1), a physical impairment includes a physiological disorder or condition affecting one or more of the listed body systems.

Darby v. Childvine, Inc. · filed 2019-11-20(h)(1)

Physical impairments include "[a]ny physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more of the following 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). ... Plaintiff has offered no statutory, regulatory, or caselaw support for her “legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation”—see Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555—that the BRCA1 gene, like cancer itself, is a physical impairment that substantially limits normal cell growth. And the Court’s own research has found none.

Section 1630.2(h)(1) defines physical impairment broadly to include a physiological disorder or condition affecting one or more body systems.

Grainger v. Hoskin & Muir, Inc. · filed 2019-12-06(h)(1)

A physical impairment as defined by the EEOC embraces a very broad definition including “any physiological disorder” that affects a “body system.” Grainger’s foot condition, which allegedly has resulted in months of medical leave and which required two surgeries, clearly would meet this expansive definition.

Section 1630.2(h)(1) defines an impairment as any physiological disorder or condition, including a musculoskeletal disorder.

Buitrago v. D.C. Department of Health · filed 2020-03-03(h)(1)

EEOC regulations define an “impairment” as “[a]ny physiological disorder or condition . . . such as . . . musculoskeletal.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1). ... Specifically, he has alleged that he has a musculoskeletal disorder that limits his ability to work because he needs to leave work to attend up to five medical appointments each week. Because most people in the general population do not need to attend five medical appointments per week each week of the year, these allegations are sufficient to allege a disability.

Section 1630.2(h) defines physical or mental impairment to include physiological disorders or conditions affecting one or more body systems and mental or psychological disorders.

Gordon v. Swift Transportation Services, LLC · filed 2020-04-03(h)

The federal regulations define physical or mental impairment as: (1) [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; or (2) any mental or psychological disorder, such as an intellectual disability…organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and specific learning disabilities.”

Section 1630.2(h)(1) requires a physical impairment to involve a physiological disorder or pathology affecting one or more body systems; a physical characteristic alone is not enough.

Colton v. FEHRER Automotive, North America, LLC · filed 2020-05-05(h)(1)

the EEOC defines a physical impairment as a “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), and the EEOC’s interpretation is entitled to judicial deference under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). ... Read plainly, the EEOC definition of “physical impairment” requires (a) some type of disorder or pathology of the body that (b) affects one or more body systems. Colton’s height fails to satisfy this definition because Colton has not alleged that her height is due to any disorder or pathology.

Section 1630.2(h)(1) includes a condition affecting the neurological system within the definition of a physical impairment, so an employer’s knowledge of an essential tremor can establish awareness of an impairment.

McGonegle v. Select Comfort Retail Corporation · filed 2021-01-22(h)(1)

Sleep Number’s argument cannot be squared with the ADA’s text. ... Here, there can be no dispute that essential tremor is a “disorder or condition” that “affects one or more body systems,” a term which expressly includes the neurological system. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1). Thus, Sleep Number’s concession that it knew about McGonegle’s tremor suffices to show that it was aware of an “impairment.”

The regulation defines a physical or mental impairment to include physiological disorders or conditions, disfigurements, anatomical losses affecting body systems, and mental or psychological disorders.

FORTUN v. IAERO THRUST LLC. · filed 2022-02-14(h)

A “physical or mental impairment” is [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; or [a]ny mental or psychological disorder, such as an intellectual disability . . ., organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and specific learning disabilities.

A physiological condition affecting the eyes is a physical impairment under the ADA’s disability definition.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Dolgencorp, LLC · filed 2022-07-26(h)(1)

Monocular vision – meaning an individual relies on one eye – is a physical impairment because it is a physiological condition that affects an individual’s eyes, a “special sense organ.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1).

Section 1630.2(h) defines a physical or mental impairment to include physiological disorders or conditions affecting one or more body systems and mental or psychological disorders.

Whorley v. International Paper · filed 2022-08-10(h)

The Code of Federal Regulations defines “physical or mental impairment” to mean: (1) Any 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; or (2) Any mental or psychological disorder, such as an intellectual disability (formerly termed “mental retardation”), organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and specific learning disabilities. ... The Complaint is devoid of factual allegations from which the Court could infer that Whorley’s COVID-19 exposure was thought by anyone at International Paper to amount to a “physical or mental impairment.” While Whorley was instructed to stay home, this shows only that Centers for Disease Control guidance was followed.

The regulation defines impairment to include a physiological disorder or condition affecting a body system, so severe anaphylaxis preventing vaccination can qualify as an ADA disability in this context.

JOHN DOE(S) AND JANE DOE(S) v. PITTSBURGH REGIONAL TRANSIT · filed 2023-07-31(h)(1)

As with the other Plaintiffs’ alleged medical conditions, because John Doe 2’s anaphylaxis prevented him from getting the vaccine, it fits within the ADA’s definition of “impairment.” That is, it is a “physiological disorder or condition” affecting John Doe 2’s immune system. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1). Thus, John Doe 2 has established that, in this context, his anaphylaxis is a disability under the ADA.

Section 1630.2(h)(1) defines a physical impairment to include a physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more listed body systems.

Williams v. Hollandale School District · filed 2023-12-05(h)(1)

A “physical impairment” is defined as “any physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more of the following body systems: neurological; musculoskeletal; special sense organs; respiratory, including speech organs; cardiovascular; reproductive, digestive, genito-urinary; hemic and lymphatic, skin; and endocrine.”

Section 1630.2(h)(1) defines a physical impairment as a physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more body systems.

Lopez-Santiago v. Med Centro, Inc. · filed 2023-12-20(h)(1)

In a regulation implementing the ADA, however, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission defined “physical impairment” as: “[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).

Section 1630.2(h) defines physical impairment broadly as any physiological disorder or condition affecting one or more body systems.

Davis v. City of Cleveland · filed 2024-02-28(h)

But it is “defined broadly, to include ‘any physiological disorder or condition affecting one or more body systems.’” Babb v. Maryville Anesthesiologists P.C., 942 F.3d 308, 319 (6th Cir. 2019) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h) (ellipsis omitted)). Given this definition, Davis’s PFB easily qualifies as a “physical impairment.”

Section 1630.2(h) defines a physical or mental impairment as a physiological or psychological disorder or condition affecting specified body systems, and the court applied that definition to reject a bare assertion of an unspecified physical disability.

Gardner-Douglas v. Tunsel · filed 2024-08-27(h)

Physical or mental impairment means—(1) Any 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; or (2) Any mental or psychological disorder, such as an intellectual disability (formerly termed “mental retardation”), organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and specific learning disabilities. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2. Major life activities “include, but are not limited to,” seeing, hearing, walking, thinking, and “operation of a major bodily function.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2). Gardner-Douglas has failed to allege an ADA claim based on an actual disability. She has not sufficiently alleged that she has an impairment or a record of an impairment, let alone one that substantially limits a major life activity.

Section 1630.2(h) defines a physical impairment as a physiological disorder, condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more body systems.

Fitzgerald v. City of Lawrence · filed 2024-11-21(h)

A physical-impairment is “[a]ny physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more body systems.”

Section 1630.2(h)(1) defines physical impairment to include a physiological disorder, condition, or anatomical loss affecting one or more body systems, including the cardiovascular system.

Wright v. OGE Energy Corp · filed 2024-12-26(h)(1)

Viewing the record evidence in a light most favorable to Wright, the court concludes that a reasonable jury could find she has a physical impairment that substantially limits one or more major activities. See, Yinger v. Postal Presort, Inc., 693 Fed. Appx. 768, 773 (10th Cir. 2017) (finding reasonable jury could conclude an individual with a heart condition requiring him to have a pacemaker in order to live had a physical impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities) (unpublished decision cited as persuasive pursuant to 10th Cir. R. 32.1(A)); see also, 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1) (defining physical impairment as “[a]ny physiological disorder or condition . . . or anatomical loss affecting one or more body systems, such as . . . [the] cardiovascular [system]”); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i)(1)(i) and (ii) (defining “major life activities” under the ADA to include “learning . . . concentrating, thinking” and “[t]he operation of a major bodily function, including . . . circulatory, cardiovascular . . . [and] the operation of an individual organ within a body system.”); 42 U.S.C. § 12102(4)(E)(i) (“The determination of whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity shall be made without regard to the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures[.]”).

Section 1630.2(h)(1) treats a physiological condition affecting the respiratory system as a physical impairment; the court applied that principle to asthma.

Kuipers v. Drake Tower Apartments, Inc. · filed 2025-08-06(h)(1)

The EEOC has indicated that a physical impairment is "[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." Richardson v. Chicago Transit Auth., 926 F.3d 881, 887 (7th Cir. 2019) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1)) (internal quotation marks omitted). ... Asthma qualifies as a "physical impairment" given its impact on an individual's respiratory system. See Bond v. Sheahan, 152 F. Supp. 2d 1055, 1064 (N.D. Ill. 2001).

Section 1630.2(h) defines physical impairment to include a physiological disorder or condition affecting one or more body systems, including the immune system.

Doe · filed 2025-12-31(h)

As relevant here, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has identified, for ADA purposes, physical impairment as including “[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). ... To be sure, Sarah’s hospital stay appears to have been a serious situation, but the proof in the record does not support a conclusion that this means she is a qualified individual with a disability—that she has a physiological disorder or condition affecting one or more body systems that substantially limits a major life activity.

Section 1630.2(h)(1) treats a physiological disorder or condition affecting one or more body systems as an impairment, and a diagnosis alone does not establish a qualifying disability without evidence that the resulting limitation is substantial.

Herrera · filed 2026-01-06(h)(1)

In analyzing whether something is a disability the court looks to whether it is a “physiological disorder or condition affecting one or more body systems, or any mental or psychological disorder.” Enwonwu v. Fulton–Dekalb Hosp. Auth., 286 Fed.Appx. 586, 603 (11th Cir.2008) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1), (2)). A medical diagnosis is insufficient, rather, “the ADA requires plaintiffs to offer evidence that the extent of the limitation caused by their impairment in terms of their own experience is substantial.” Id. ... Plaintiff asserts no factual allegations regarding his alleged disability. Although he asserts he is disabled, as explained above, that conclusion or inference is not sufficient to plausibly allege that he is disabled.

Monocular vision is a physical impairment under the ADA disability definition.

Gil v. VORTEX, LLC · filed 2010-03-25(h)(1)

There can be no dispute that Gil’s monocular vision is a physical impairment.

Section 1630.2(h) excludes physical characteristics that are not caused by a physiological disorder from the definition of impairment, including for perceived disability.

Andrews v. State of Ohio · filed 1997-02-21(h)

Accordingly, physical characteristics that are "not the result of a physiological disorder" are not considered "impairments" for the purposes of determining either actual or perceived disability.

Anatomical loss involving the respiratory system is a physical impairment.

Milton v. Bob Maddox Chrysler Plymouth, Inc. · filed 1994-10-03(h)

As for a cognizable “disability,” the Court first notes that Milton clearly has a “physical impairment.” Regulations clarifying the ADA definition of that term explicitly encompass anatomical losses involving the respiratory system.

Section 1630.2(h)(1) defines physical impairment to include asthma because it affects the respiratory system.

Bond v. Sheahan · filed 2001-07-19(h)(1)

Because asthma adversely affects the respiratory system, it undoubtedly qualifies as a “physical impairment.”

A condition affecting the musculoskeletal system, such as degenerative ankle arthritis, is a physical impairment.

Covello v. Depository Trust Co. · filed 2002-08-13(h)(1)

The degenerative arthritis of Covello’s left ankle, which is mentioned in the two doctors’ notes and the Family Medical Leave Act form, is a condition that affects her musculoskeletal system. As such, the Court concludes that Covello’s claimed condition is a physical “impairment” as that term is defined in the ADA.

Rheumatoid arthritis is a physical impairment because it is a physiological condition affecting the musculoskeletal system.

Barnes v. Northwest Iowa Health Center · filed 2002-11-18(h)(1)

Indeed, as a physiological condition that affects the musculoskeletal system, rheumatoid arthritis falls within the definition of “impairment” in the regulations defining “physical impairment” for purposes of the ADA.

Breast cancer qualifies as an impairment under the ADA definition.

Pimental v. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Clinic · filed 2002-12-30(h)

There is no question that plaintiffs breast cancer constitutes an “impairment” for purposes of the ADA. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h).

Section 1630.2(h)(1) includes chronic pancreatitis as a physical impairment because it affects the digestive and endocrine systems.

Waldrip v. General Electric Co. · filed 2003-04-01(h)(1)

It also fits with the definition of “physical impairment” adopted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”): “Any physiological . . . condition . . . affecting . . . digestive . . . and endocrine [systems].” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1).

Asthma is a physical impairment because it is a physiological condition affecting the respiratory system.

Murphy v. Board of Education of the Rochester City School District · filed 2003-07-10(h)(1)

Defendants do not appear to dispute that plaintiff does have asthma, and it is clear that asthma constitutes a physical impairment. Regulations promulgated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission define physical or mental impairment as, inter alia, “any physiological disorder or condition ... affecting [the] ... respiratory [system].” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1).

Section 1630.2(h)'s definition of impairment can cover allergy and stress symptoms, but an impairment must substantially limit a major life activity to qualify as a disability.

Butler v. Exxon Mobil Corp. · filed 2012-01-20(h)

Plaintiff provides competent summary judgment evidence in the form of medical records and his own testimony that he suffered from symptoms including dry skin and mouth, itchy skin, throat soreness, watery eyes, joint pain and stiffness, fatigue, depression, congestion, and sinus infections. A jury could find that these are impairments.

A physical impairment includes a condition affecting the respiratory or cardiovascular system.

Lloyd v. Housing Authority of the Montgomery · filed 2012-04-27(h)(1)

Dr. Hendon’s FMLA certification showcases how Lloyd has both a respiratory condition (asthma) and a cardiovascular condition (high blood pressure) that amount to physical impairments.

An impairment includes a physiological disorder or condition affecting a body system; an employer can perceive an applicant as impaired when it assumes a back condition disqualifies him.

Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. BNSF Ry. Co. · filed 2018-08-29(h)(1)

By regulation, the EEOC has defined an impairment as "[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). ... BNSF chose to perceive Holt as having an impairment at the time it asked for the MRI and at the time it revoked his job offer.

Section 1630.2(h)(1) treats sleep apnea, diabetes, and heart disease as physical impairments because they are physiological conditions affecting body systems.

Sturgill v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co. · filed 2019-08-07(h)(1)

Thus, sleep apnea, diabetes, and heart disease are all physical impairments under the ADA.

Section 1630.2 recognizes disability based on an actual or perceived impairment, including regarded-as status without requiring a limitation of a major life activity, and identifies qualifying impairments and major life activities.

Rodriguez v. Florida Arthritis Center, P.L. · filed 2025-05-15(g), (g)(1)(iii), (h), (i)(1)(i)

A plaintiff satisfies the “regarded as” prong “if the individual establishes that he or she has been subjected to [a prohibited adverse employment action] because of an actual or perceived physical or mental impairment whether or not the impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity,” so long as the impairment is not “transitory and minor” in nature. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(3)(A)-(B); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(g)(1)(iii), (j)(2). The United States Code directs the definition of disability to be construed broadly, and the Code of Federal Regulations enumerates a non-exhaustive list of physical and mental impairments that qualify as disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(4)(A); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h). “Major life activities” include the activities of “[c]aring for oneself, performing manual tasks . . . walking, standing, lifting, . . . breathing, . . . and working.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(A); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i)(1)(i).

The regulation defines impairment, major life activities, substantial limitation, record of disability, and regarded-as disability; for working, substantial limitation requires exclusion from a class or broad range of jobs, not merely one job.

Phillips v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. · filed 1999-11-29(h)(1), (h)(2), (i), (j)(1), (j)(2), (j)(3)(i), (j)(3)(ii), (k), (l)

In order for a physical or mental 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©(3)(i). ... On the other hand, 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). ... The court therefore concludes that Phillips was not substantially limited in his ability to work at the time the alleged discrimination occurred. Accordingly, because Phillips has not shown that his physical or mental impairments substantially limit any of his major life activities, the court holds that he is not actually disabled within the meaning of the ADA.

Section 1630.2 identifies major life activities such as walking and speaking and defines substantial limitation by comparison with the average person.

McInnis v. Alamo Community College District · filed 2000-03-20

A “major life activity,” as defined by the EEOC regulations includes such functions as “caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2.

The regulation defines an individual with a disability as someone whose physical or mental impairment substantially limits one or more major life activities and identifies examples of those activities.

Lund v. J.C. Penney Outlet · filed 1996-01-04(g), (i)

A person is an “individual with a disability” under the ADA if she suffers from a “physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of [her] major life activities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(g). “Major life activities” include earing for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing and learning. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i). In order to make out a prima facie case under the ADA, a plaintiff must show (1) some impairment (2) which substantially limits (3) her ability to engage in one of the above-described activities.

Section 1630.2 recognizes hearing as a major life activity relevant to determining whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity.

Wright v. North Carolina State University · filed 2000-01-06

To maintain an ADA claim, plaintiff must show that she is disabled, i.e., that she suffers an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity. Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2, hearing is a major life activity. Because plaintiff has alleged that her hearing is substantially impaired and has provided supporting documentation of that impairment, she has raised a genuine issue of material fact as to whether she is “disabled” within the meaning of the ADA.

The regulation defines disability to include an impairment substantially limiting a major life activity, defines mental impairment broadly to include mental or psychological disorders, and identifies working and other activities as major life activities.

Armstrong v. Lockheed Martin Beryllium Corp. · filed 1997-12-12(g), (h)(2), (i)

The ADA defines “disability” as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a record of such impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(A)-(C); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(g)-(h). A “mental impairment” refers to “any 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). Major life activities include “caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i).

Section 1630.2(i) identifies major life activities whose substantial limitation can establish a disability, while § 1630.2(k) extends coverage to a person with a record of an impairment that substantially limits major life activities; the court applied both definitions and found that the plaintiff was not disabled.

Jenkins-Allen v. Powell Duffryn Terminals, Inc. · filed 1998-08-19(i), (k)

EEOC regulations define “major life activities” to include “functions such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i). ... Since no major life activity was substantially impaired immediately after Ms. Jenkins-Allen’s termination, the reasonable inference one draws from this evidence is that Ms. Jenkins-Alien was not disabled at the time of her discharge in July, 1996. Ms. Jenkins-Alien has not presented any evidence to the contrary. Thus, she does not have a disability which substantially limits her major life activities. ... The record of impairment method extends coverage under the ADA ... to persons ‘who ha[ve] a history of, or ha[ve] been misclassified as having, a mental or physical impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.’ ... In this case, although Ms. Jenkins-Allen was on a workers’ compensation leave of absence for seven months in 1995 because of carpal tunnel syndrome, she had surgery on both her arms during that period and returned to work in January, 1996 without any restrictions. She was fully recovered, and although she complained of pain in April, 1996, there is no evidence that the pain substantially limited any of her major life activities.

Section 1630.2 treats lifting as a major life activity, but a 45-pound lifting restriction does not substantially limit lifting, and a record of impairment requires a history of an impairment substantially limiting a major life activity.

Gutridge v. Clure · filed 1998-12-11(i), (j)(1)(i), and (k)

The EEOC regulations include lifting as an example of a major life activity. See 29 C.F.R. Pt. 1630, App. § 1630.2(i). A permanent lifting restriction of not more than 45 pounds, however, neither renders him "[u]nable to perform" nor "[s]ignificantly restrict[s]" his activity of lifting. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(i), (ii). Further, we have held that, "[w]hile lifting is noted under the regulations as a major life activity, a general lifting restriction imposed by a physician, without more, is insufficient to constitute a disability within the meaning of the ADA." Snow v. Ridgeview Med. Ctr., 128 F.3d 1201, 1207 (8th Cir.1997) (citing Helfter v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 115 F.3d 613, 617 (8th Cir.1997) and Aucutt v. Six Flags Over Mid-America, Inc., 85 F.3d 1311, 1319 (8th Cir.1996)). We find that Gutridge's permanent lifting restriction does not impose a substantial limitation on his major life activity of lifting. ... The EEOC regulations state that "a record of such impairment" means "a history of ... a mental or physical impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities." 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(k). Gutridge has failed to show that one or more of his major life activities was substantially limited. Moreover, we reject Gutridge's argument that such a record of impairment was established during his period of treatment and recovery. Disability under the ADA requires permanent or long-term impairments, see 29 C.F.R. Pt. 1630, App. § 1630.2(j), and impairments while recovering from surgery are not evidence of a permanent disability, see Heintzelman v. Runyon, 120 F.3d 143, 145 (8th Cir.1997).

Section 1630.2(i) identifies major life activities, while § 1630.2(k) requires a record of an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; past discrete injuries alone do not establish such a record.

Moody v. M W Kellogg Company · filed 1999-03-09(i) (k)

The regulations define major life activities as “functions such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i). ... To have a record of a substantially limiting impairment, one must “ha[ve] a history of, or ha[ve] been misclassified as having, a mental or physical impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(k). While Moody has produced evidence of past injuries, she has produced no evidence of a history of disability. Evidence of past discrete injuries is insufficient, for “[t]he impairment indicated in the record must be an impairment that would substantially limit one or more of the individual's major life activities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630 app. at § 1630.2(k).

Section 1630.2(i) treats working and manual tasks as major life activities, but § 1630.2(o)(1) does not entitle a person who is not disabled to reasonable accommodation.

Fultz v. City of Salem · filed 2002-09-13(i), (o)(1)

The regulations define “working” as a major life activity, 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i), but Plaintiffs argument on substantiality is foreclosed by ... On this record, Plaintiffs injury precludes him from performing ... only law enforcement jobs that require forcible arrests or involvement with potentially combative situations; that is not a broad class of jobs. ... Second, Plaintiff asserts that he is substantially limited in his ability to perform manual tasks, a major life activity. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i). However, under ... the evidence is insufficient. ... Moreover, a person who is not disabled is not entitled to reasonable accommodation, 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(l), and we need not decide whether Defendant’s job requirements are essential.

For an episodic impairment, substantial limitation is assessed by considering the impairment’s overall effects rather than only its most severe manifestations, and a record of disability requires an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity.

Walker v. Town of Greeneville · filed 2004-12-13(f), (k)

The Court must consider the overall effects of plaintiffs impairment, not just when those effects are most severe. ... An individual has a “record of’ disability if he “has a history of, or has been misclassified as having, a mental or physical impairment that sub-stántially limits one or more major life activities.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(k). ... Since the Court has concluded that he is not substantially limited in a major life activity, plaintiff cannot satisfy that he had a record of a disability as defined by the ADA.

Section 1630.2(g) recognizes disability through an actual impairment, a record of impairment, or being regarded as having an impairment, and section 1630.2(i) identifies major life activities such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.

Smith v. Quintiles Transnational Corp. · filed 2007-04-10(g), (i)

An individual is deemed to be “disabled” for purposes of the ADA if she satisfies any one of these three enumerated definitions. ... Major life activities are enumerated under the ADA as “functions such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i).

Section 1630.2(h)(2) treats mental or psychological disorders, including emotional or mental illness, as physical or mental impairments, and section 1630.2(i) identifies major life activities such as thinking, working, and learning.

ROMAN-MARTINEZ v. Potter · filed 2008-04-02(h)(2), (i)

A mental or psychological disorder, including emotional or mental illness qualifies as a physical or mental impairment. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(2). ... Mr. Roman has also shown that his impairment affects a “major” life activity. ... The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) regulations interpreting 42 U.S.C. § 12102 define major life activities as “caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i). ... Cognitive function, in other words the ability to think, clearly qualifies as a major life activity.

Section 1630.2 treats an impairment as a disability when it substantially limits a major life activity, and recognizes standing as a major life activity.

Simpson v. Potter · filed 2008-12-09(i)

Disability is defined as a mental or physical impairment that substantially limits a major life activity. ... Plaintiff indicates that her impairment, venous insufficiency, affects her ability to stand for longer than fifteen minutes without rest. ... Standing is identified as a major life activity in the EEOC’s Interpretive Guidance on Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2® App. ... Taking these facts to be true, as the court must in a motion to dismiss, plaintiff has sufficiently alleged she has a disability.

Section 1630.2(i)(1)(ii) treats operation of the lymphatic system as a major life activity.

Francis v. Wyckoff Heights Medical Center · filed 2016-03-30(i)(1)(ii)

Notably, major life activities include the “operation of a major bodily function,” including the function of the lymphatic system. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i)(1)(ii).

Under § 1630.2(j)(1), an impairment is a disability only if it substantially limits a major life activity compared with most people, and § 1630.2(j)(1)(i) identifies major life activities such as walking, lifting, and working.

Rowe v. Shulkin · filed 2019-05-09(j)(1), (j)(1)(i)

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) instructs that an impairment “is a disability within the meaning of this section if it substantially limits the ability of an individual to perform a major life activity as compared to most people in the general population.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1) (2019). A major life activity is one “of central importance to daily life,” such as walking, seeing, and hearing. Pashnick v. United Parcel Serv., No. 09 C 565, 2010 WL 4628523, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 8, 2010) (citing Toyota, 534 U.S. at 197); see also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(i) (2019) (providing a non-exhaustive list of major life activities, including caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, reaching, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, and working). Plaintiff’s disability claim fails because he cannot show that his disability impacts a major life activity under the ADA.

The regulation identifies major life activities and requires “substantially limits” to be construed broadly in favor of expansive coverage.

Charles v. Wal-Mart Louisiana L L C · filed 2020-03-11(i)(1)(i), (j)(1)(ii)

Here, the documentation submitted by Plaintiffs doctor specifically includes the following restrictions: “no twisting, no climbing, no bending, no lifting/carrying over 15 Ibs., no pushing/pulling over 15 lbs.” These restrictions would impose substantial limitations on the types of life activities identified in 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i)(1)(i).” Construing the term “substantially limits” broadly, and viewing evidence in favor of the non-moving party, the Court finds that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Plaintiff has a disability within the meaning of the ADA.

Section 1630.2(i) treats hearing as a major life activity relevant to determining whether an individual has a disability under the ADA.

Aletum v. Kuehne and Nagel Company · filed 2020-04-23(i)

To be sure, plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that he has a recognized disability under the ADA. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i) (providing that “hearing” is one of the “life activities” contemplated by the ADA); Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, 2020 WL 247305, at *3 (recognizing that deafness is an ADA-recognized disability); Bryant v. Better Bus. Bureau, 923 F. Supp. 720, 743 (D. Md. 1996) (holding that “hearing loss approaching deafness” is a disability under the ADA).

The regulation explains that not every impairment is a disability and expressly identifies working as a major life activity.

Brown v. Advanced Concept Innovations, LLC · filed 2021-02-10(j)(1)(ii), (i)(1)(i)

Nevertheless, “not every impairment will constitute a disability within the meaning of [the ADA].” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii). ... Plaintiff has asserted and put forth evidence to show that ptyalism limited her ability to work, which is a major life activity. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i)(1)(i) (explicitly including “working” as a major life activity).

Section 1630.2(i)(i) includes communicating among the major life activities relevant to determining whether a person has a disability, and a broad application of that concept can support pleading disability.

Doe v. Cabell County Board of Education · filed 2022-02-24(i)(i)

Given that examples of “major life activities” include “caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking… speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating….,” Plaintiffs’ assertion that John Doe is nonverbal and has severe special needs is enough to allege that he is a qualified individual for ADA purposes. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i)(i). Further, he was place in a special-needs classroom and allegedly assaulted by a special-needs aide. This shows that the school recognized that he had a disability. Given the direction to interpret “disability” broadly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged John Doe’s disability to survive a motion to dismiss.

Section 1630.2 treats an impairment lasting or expected to last fewer than six months as potentially substantially limiting, requires “substantially limits” to be construed broadly, and recognizes working as a major life activity.

Mitten v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation · filed 2022-08-19(j)(1)(i), (j)(1)(ix), (i)(1)

A physical or mental impairment under subpart (A) does not require permanence, and EEOC regulations make clear that “impairment[s] lasting or expected to last fewer than six months can be substantially limiting” for the purposes of proving an actual disability. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ix); see also Summers v. Altarum Inst., Corp., 740 F.3d 325, 329 (4th Cir. 2014). Those same regulations counsel that the term “substantially limits” should be “construed broadly in favor of expansive coverage” and should not be viewed as a “demanding standard.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(i). ... Temporary limitations can satisfy the ADAAA’s “actual disability” definition, 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(ix); Skerce, 852 F. App’x at 362, and it is undisputed that from March 2018 to August 2018 Mitten was on complete, though temporary, leave because of that injury. Given that the ability to work is a “major life activity,” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i)(1), Mitten can show she had an actual disability—as defined in the ADAAA— during that period.

Section 1630.2(j)(1)(i) requires broad construction of disability and substantial-limit determinations, while § 1630.2(i)(1)(i) recognizes sitting and working as major life activities.

Wertheim v. James F. Potter, In his Official Capacity As Sheriff of DeSoto County · filed 2022-10-18(j)(1)(i); (i)(1)(i)

Following amendments, courts should broadly construe disabilities and any substantial limits. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(4)(A)-(B); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(i). Even with liberal construction, plaintiff must offer evidence of a disability all the same. ... Sitting and working are major life activities. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i)(1)(i).

The regulation treats diabetes as substantially limiting endocrine function, supporting a finding of disability when endocrine function requires medication.

Anderson v. Textron Aviation, Inc. · filed 2024-01-04(j)(1)(i), (j)(1)(ii), (i), (j)(3)(iii)

Given these regulations and the undisputed fact that Plaintiff needs medication to regulate his endocrine function, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s diabetes qualifies as a disability because it substantially limits a major life activity.

The regulation treats hearing as a major life activity, and its interactive-process provision applies when the appropriate accommodation is not immediately obvious.

Aletum v. Opusing, LLC · filed 2024-07-16(i), (o)(3)

Under the ADA, unlawful discrimination includes the failure to “mak[e] reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee,” unless the employer can show that the accommodation “would impose an undue hardship.” Id. § 12112(b)(5)(A). If an employee informs their employer that they need an accommodation but “it is not immediately obvious what accommodation would be appropriate, the ADA requires that the employer and employee engage in an interactive process to identify a reasonable accommodation.” Fleetwood v. Harford Sys. Inc., 380 F. Supp. 2d 688, 701 (D. Md. 2005) (citing Bryant v. Better Bus. Bureau of Greater Md., Inc., 923 F. Supp. 720, 737 (D. Md. 1996); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3)). ... Mr. Aletum alleges that his deafness is a recognized disability under the ADA, see ECF No. 23, at 2, 8, and indeed, the ADA and its implementing regulations state that hearing is a major life activity, see 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(A); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i). Accordingly, courts have “easily concluded” that deafness is a disability under the ADA. E.g., Aletum v. Anchor Staffing Agency, Inc., No. 8:19-cv-02719-AAQ, 2023 WL 2648780, at *3 (D. Md. Mar. 27, 2023); see also, e.g., Searls v. Johns Hopkins Hosp., 158 F. Supp. 3d 427, 434 (D. Md. 2016) (noting that the parties did not dispute that plaintiff’s deafness was a disability “within the meaning of the ADA”). Thus, the Court concludes that Mr. Aletum has a disability under the ADA.

Section 1630.2 treats major depressive disorder as substantially limiting brain function and lists sleeping, concentrating, and thinking among the major life activities that can be substantially limited.

Walters v. Shintech, Inc. · filed 2025-03-26(j)(3)(iii), (i)(1)(i)

Likewise, federal regulations accompanying the ADA state that “it should easily be concluded that the following types of impairments will, at a minimum, substantially limit the major life activities indicated: . . . major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, and schizophrenia substantially limit brain function.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(iii). ... “Major life activities include, but are not limited to: [] Caring 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). ... Both federal courts and federal regulations have recognized depression as a disability that limits major life activities. Mueck, 75 F.4th at 479–80; 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(iii). Plaintiff here has testified as to her struggles to sleep, think, concentrate, and communicate as a result of her depression. A reasonable jury could therefore find that Plaintiff was disabled during the relevant timeframe because she was substantially limited in the major life activity of sleeping as a result of her depression.

Subsection (I) identifies hearing as a major life activity relevant to determining whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity.

Ramos · filed 2025-11-26(I)

“Major life activities under the ADA are basic activities that the average person can perform with little or no difficulty, including ‘caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.’” Battle v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 438 F.3d 856, 861 (8th Cir. 2006) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(I)). Plaintiff alleges he is deaf and must communicate using American Sign Language and, thus, he has alleged a disability under the ADA.

Section 1630.2(i) identifies a limitation on a major life activity by reference to reduced ability to perform essential tasks such as caring for oneself, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, standing, sitting, or maintaining major bodily functions.

Cabrera · filed 2026-01-06(i)

A person has an impairment to a major life activity if they have a condition that limits their ability to perform essential tasks such as caring for oneself, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, standing, sitting, or maintaining operations of their major bodily functions. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2 (i) (defining when a disability limits a major life activity); see also Morgan v. Allison Crane & Rigging LLC, 114 F.4th 214, 222 (3d Cir. 2024) (noting that regulations found at 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2 define when a disability limits a major life activity).

Section 1630.2(n) defines essential functions as fundamental job duties and identifies factors for deciding whether a function is essential, including why the position exists, staffing limits, time spent performing the function, and the consequences of not requiring it.

Martin v. State of Kansas · filed 1999-08-19(n)(1), (n)(2)(i)-(iii), (n)(3)(iii)-(iv)

The term “essential functions” is defined as “the fundamental job duties of the employment position the individual with a disability holds or desires.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1). ... Turning to the evidence in this case, we consider the factors listed in 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n) for determining the essential functions of a job, and conclude that Martin has failed to put forth sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact rebutting the State’s position that the essential functions of Martin’s job were those broader functions of a corrections officer position, as opposed to the limited duties of a particular post. ... We conclude that the evidence presented by Martin is insufficient for a jury to find that the essential functions of Martin’s job were limited to the duties of his tower post position.

Section 1630.2(n)(2)(i) allows the reason a position exists to perform a function to be considered in determining whether that function is essential.

Richey v. City of Lilburn · filed 1999-09-07(n)(2)(i)

To be considered a “qualified individual with a disability,” the plaintiff must show that she is able, with or without reasonable accommodation, to perform the essential functions of the position. ... The regulations identify three factors that may be considered to determine if a particular task is essential: (1) the reason the position exists is to perform the function; (2) there are a limited number of employees available among whom the performance of the job function can be distributed; and (3) the function is highly specialized so that the incumbent in the position was hired for his or her expertise or ability to perform the particular function. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(2)(i)-(iii); ... The Court finds that defendant’s argument, that plaintiff is not a “qualified individual with a disability,” is well taken. The essential functions required of a dispatcher include being able to respond quickly and calmly and to communicate clearly in emergency situations.

Section 1630.2(n)(3) identifies factors such as time spent performing a function, consequences of not performing it, and the experience of prior or similar-job holders as relevant to whether the function is essential.

Champ v. Baltimore County · filed 1995-04-19(n)(3)

Other relevant factors bearing on whether a function is essential to the job include the amount of time an employee spends on the job performing that function, the consequences of the' employee not performing that function, the work experience of prior holders of that position and/or the current work experience of those in similar jobs. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3). ... In light of the ADA’s instruction to consider the employer’s judgment and any written job description in determining the essential duties of a position and the absence of any contrary evidénce from Champ, the Court concludes that no genuine dispute exists that the ability to make a forcible arrest, drive a vehicle under emergency conditions and qualify with a weapon are essential functions that all Baltimore County police officers must be able to perform.

Section 1630.2(n)(1) defines essential functions as the fundamental duties of the position that the individual must perform, with or without reasonable accommodation, to be qualified.

Susie v. Apple Tree Preschool & Child Care Center, Inc. · filed 1994-10-17(n)(1)

"The term 'essential functions' means the fundamental job duties of the employment position the individual with a disability holds or desires." 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(l). "The essential functions are by definition those that the individual who holds the job would have to perform, with or without reasonable accommodation, in order to be considered qualified for the position.” 29 C. F.R.App. § 1630.2(o). Here, the parties have not identified what they consider to constitute the "essential functions” of a teacher at Apple Tree.

The regulation makes essential-function and qualified-individual determinations fact-specific, requiring consideration of all relevant evidence rather than treating the employer’s judgment or job description as conclusive.

Sharp v. Abate · filed 1995-06-20(n)(2)(i), (m)

Under the ADA and its regulations, a “qualified individual” is “an individual with a disability who satisfies the requisite skill, experience, education and other job-related requirements of the employment position ... and who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of such position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m). The “essential functions” of a job are the “fundamental job duties of the employment position.” ... Evidence of whether a particular function is essential includes, but is not limited to the employer’s judgment as to which functions are essential, the written job description, the amount of time spent performing the function, the consequences of not requiring the employee to perform the function, the work experience of past employees in the position, and the current work experience of employees in similar positions. ... The interpretive guide to Part 1630 of the regulations makes clear that the inquiry into whether a particular function is essential is a fact specific exercise to be made on a case by case basis. 29 C.F.R. Part 1630 App. at 400. All relevant evidence, not merely the factors listed in Section 1630.2(n)(3), should be considered in making the determination. ... On this record, the Court is constrained to hold that the question whether the supervision of inmates is an essential function of a correction officer raises a genuine issue of fact. Accordingly, this branch of defendants’ motion is denied.

Section 1630.2(n) defines an essential function as a fundamental job duty and identifies evidence relevant to deciding whether a function is essential.

Harden v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. · filed 1995-07-26(n)(l), (n)(3)

An essential function “means the fundamental job duties of the employment position that the individual with a disability holds or desires. The term ‘essential functions’ does not include the marginal functions of the position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(l). ... 29 CFR § 1630.2(n)(3). The first two factors weigh heavily in favor of showing that the lifting requirement is an essential function of the SCSA job. ... Furthermore, in the job description for an SCSA, lifting or carrying a minimum of 70 pounds is listed under “Key Skills/Experience Required” on the first page. (Ex. 2 to Harden’s Dep.). ... The Court finds that the 70 pound lifting requirement is an essential job function of an SCSA.

Section 1630.2(j) does not treat temporary, minor injuries as substantially limiting a major life activity.

Hutchinson v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · filed 1995-04-26(j)

ADA regulations, as well as ADA interpretive guidance, make clear that temporary, minor injuries do not “substantially limit” a person’s major life activities. 29 CFR §§ 1630.2(j), 1630 App., at 407. Although Hutchinson’s injuries were not “minor,” the medical record demonstrates that they were temporary, and that any permanent impairment is only slight.

Section 1630.2 recognizes the essential functions of a job as its fundamental duties and permits those functions to be identified from the employer’s job description for an individualized disability assessment.

Bombrys v. City of Toledo · filed 1993-06-04(n) (m)

A plaintiff must show that he or she can perform the essential functions of a job. A job’s essential functions are often defined by an employer and can be found in a job description. Congress has defined essential functions as “the fundamental job duties of the employment position the individual with the disability holds or desires.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n) The Interpretive Guidance section associated with the Americans With Disabilities Act suggests that disabled individuals must be individually assessed for each job for which they apply. Interpretive Guidance to 28 C.F.R., Part 35, Subpart A, § 35.104. Courts have interpreted the Americans With Disabilities Act to require a case-by-case analysis of disabled persons and the jobs they desire to obtain. ... Both parties presented it as evidence of the duties and the job description of a police officer in the City of Toledo. This Court finds that it contains a description of the essential functions of a police officer, and it will be used as the “essential functions” measuring device required by the Americans With Disabilities Act. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m).

The regulation treats physiological disorders or conditions affecting listed body systems as physical impairments, treats “major life activities” as an illustrative list, defines a record of impairment as a history of the condition, and covers individuals regarded as having a substantially limiting impairment.

Doe v. Kohn Nast & Graf, P.C. · filed 1994-09-02(h), (i), (k), (Z)

Each of these symptoms fall within the regulatory definition of “physical impairment.” ... The use of the words “such as” indicates that this list is illustrative and is not intended to be exclusive. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i), EEOC Regulations, Appendix to Part 1630 — Interpretative guidance on Title I of the ADA. ... A “record of such impairment” means a “history” of the condition. ... The third possible theory of liability under the ADA is not whether the plaintiff actually had an impairment, but whether he was regarded as having an impairment. If he was, that is enough. The expression is reasonably self-defining, but the regulations give greater specificity. ... Plaintiff is regarded as having an impairment if he: ... (3) Has none of the impairments defined [above] but is treated by a covered entity as having a substantially limiting impairment. ... 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(Z).

Section 1630.2(m) defines a qualified individual by the ability to meet job requirements and perform essential functions with or without accommodation; § 1630.2(n) treats fundamental, non-marginal duties as essential and supplies factors for identifying them; and the Appendix to § 1630.2(o) does not require reallocating essential functions as an accommodation.

Holbrook v. City of Alpharetta, Georgia · filed 1995-03-31(m), (n), (n)(2)(i), (n)(3)(i), (o)

Under the ADA, the term qualified individual with a disability means ... an individual with a disability who satisfies the requisite skill, experience, education and other job-related requirements of the employment position such individual holds or desires, and who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of such position. ... Under the ADA, essential functions are defined as the fundamental job duties of the position and do not include the marginal functions of the position. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n). There are three identified job functions that may be considered essential for the purposes of the ADA: (1) the reason the position exists is to perform the function; (2) there is a limited number of employees available among whom the performance of the job function can be distributed; and (3) the function is highly specialized so that the incumbent in the position was hired for his or her expertise or ability to perform the particular function. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(2)(i)-(iii). ... 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)(i)-(vii). These factors likewise support an inference that the collection of evidence is an essential function of a detective’s position. ... Thus, while the ADA and § 504 would require an employer to restructure the marginal functions of a job as a reasonable accommodation, neither statute requires the employer to restructure the job so that the individual with a disability does not have to perform essential functions.

Section 1630.2 treats reasonable accommodation as including restructuring a job to remove non-essential functions, and recognizes that whether a qualification standard relates to essential job functions bears on the accommodation inquiry.

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. AIC Security Investigations, Ltd. · filed 1995-05-22(o), (r)

Even for employees who do pose a direct threat, an employer must make reasonable accommodations. ... The ADA defines “reasonable accommodation” to include restructuring a job, such as by removing non-essential functions from the job. ... Thus, an employer could not fire an employee as the district court hypothesized; instead, the employer would simply have to remove the non-essential functions from the employee’s job, thereby eliminating the danger. ... That language is not directed at the direct threat defense in particular, but rather to any type of qualification standard or selection criterion. It is just a way of re-stating the point the district court missed: that any non-essential part of a job can usually be removed through a reasonable accommodation, such as a change in the job definition or a restructuring of the workplace. ... An examination of the essential functions of the job is a necessary subset of the inquiry into reasonable accommodations; another jury instruction already required the jury to consider reasonable accommodations in the light of essential functions. ... The inquiry about essential functions should have been confined as a subset of the question of accommodation; it should not have appeared in this instruction at all.

Subsection (n) treats as essential functions the central requirements of a job that bear more than a marginal relationship to it.

Amariglio v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. · filed 1996-09-20(n)

Essential functions are the central position requirements, bearing more than a marginal relationship to the job. ... The essential functions of AMTRAK train attendants are passenger safety-related and include opening car doors to permit loading and unloading of passengers, assisting passengers as they embark and disembark trains, and securing the ear doors after the passengers have loaded.

Section 1630.2(n)(1)-(3) treats an essential function as a position’s fundamental job duties and permits considering listed factors, including the employer’s judgment, written job descriptions, time spent, consequences of omission, collective-bargaining terms, and work experience.

Hamlin v. Charter Township of Flint · filed 1996-11-04(n)(1), (n)(2), (n)(3)

An essential function for both the ADA and the MHCRA means the “fundamental job duties” of a position, not those that are “marginal”. ... Given this factual record, the Court concludes that there is a material question of fact as to whether filling in for another firefighter is an essential function of the Assistant Fire Chief position.

Section 1630.2(n)(3) requires considering five listed factors, including time spent performing the function, consequences of not requiring it, collective-bargaining terms, past incumbents’ experience, and current similar-job incumbents’ experience, when determining whether a job function is essential.

Davis v. Florida Power & Light Co. · filed 2000-03-10(n)(3)

The ADA regulations provide that other factors to consider are: (1) the amount of time spent on the job performing the function, (2) the consequences of not requiring the incumbent to perform the function, (3) the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, (4) the work experience of past incumbents in the job, and (5) the current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3) (1999). ... All of these factors demonstrate that mandatory overtime is an essential function of the C&D position. ... For all of these reasons, we conclude that the district court correctly held that mandatory overtime was an essential function of Davis's C&D position.

Section 1630.2(n)(3) identifies nonexclusive evidence for determining whether a job function is essential, including employer judgment, written job descriptions, time spent, consequences of omission, bargaining terms, and work experience.

Lenker v. Methodist Hospital · filed 2000-04-26(n)(3)

In determining whether a particular job function is essential, we are guided by the federal regulations: ... Evidence of whether a particular function is essential includes, but is not limited to: ... (i) The employer's judgment as to which functions are essential; ... (ii) Written job descriptions prepared before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job; ... (iii) The amount of time spent on the job performing the function; ... (iv) The consequences of not requiring the incumbent to perform the function; ... (v) The terms of a collective bargaining agreement; ... (vi) The work experience of past incumbent in the job; and/or ... (vii) The current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs. ... See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3). See also R. 67, Court's Instruction No. 16 (detailing these factors for the jury). The jury heard evidence that Methodist considered lifting an essential function of the job, that it was part of the job description for staff nurses, that at times, staff shortages or emergencies left a nurse without assistance in a lifting task, and that the need for lifting was not always predictable because patients sometimes fell or needed assistance unexpectedly. ... In short, based on evidence presented by the hospital, the jury was certainly entitled to find that lifting was an essential function of a nurse's job.

The regulation defines essential functions as the fundamental duties of a job and directs courts to consider specified factors for determining which duties are essential, including the employer’s judgment, written job descriptions, collective bargaining agreements, time spent, consequences of omission, and comparable work experience.

Summerville v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. · filed 2000-08-07(n)(1) (n)(3)

Essential functions are the fundamental duties of a job, not activities at the margins. ... Essential functions are established by looking at: the employer’s judgment as to what functions are essential; written job descriptions; the collective bargaining agreement; the amount of time spent on the job performing the functions; the consequences of not requiring the employee to perform the functions; and the work experience of employees in similar jobs. ... Thus, we hold, as a matter of law, lifting is an essential function of Sum-merville’s overtime, holiday, and day-trading employment.

Section 1630.2 treats essential functions as the fundamental duties of the position, assessed case by case using factors such as the employer’s judgment and written job descriptions, and requires a qualified individual to perform those functions with or without reasonable accommodation.

Lucas v. W.W. Grainger, Inc. · filed 2001-07-17(n)(1), (n), (m)

Essential functions are "the fundamental job duties of the employment position the [disabled employee] holds or desires." 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1). Determining whether a particular job duty is an essential function involves a factual inquiry to be conducted on a case-by-case basis. See Davis, 205 F.3d at 1305. We have previously stated that, in conducting this inquiry, "consideration shall be given to the employer's judgment ... and if an employer has prepared a written description ... for the job, this description shall be considered evidence of the essential functions of the job." Earl v. Mervyns, Inc., 207 F.3d 1361, 1365 (11th Cir.2000) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8)); see also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n) (listing additional factors to consider in determining whether a particular job function is essential).

Section 1630.2(n)(1) defines essential functions as the fundamental duties of the position, and the court applied that definition to Brown’s ability to operate a bus safely.

Brown v. Triboro Coach Corp. · filed 2001-06-01(n)(1)

Brown was not a qualified individual with a disability under the ADA because while he was suffering from sleep apnea, he was unable to perform the essential functions of his job. “Essential functions” are the “fundamental job duties of the employment position the individual with a disability holds or desires.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(l). Sleep apnea rendered Brown unable to operate a bus safely, and Brown’s doctors specifically stated that he may not return to work until they determined that his treatment was effective.

Section 1630.2(n)(2)(i) treats a job function as essential when the position exists to perform that function.

Mathews v. Denver Post · filed 2001-08-24(n)(2)(i)

One way to establish that a function is essential is to show that the position exists to perform that function. ... The record in this case leaves no doubt that operating the insert machine and power dolly were essential functions of Mathews's job.

Section 1630.2(n) defines essential functions as the fundamental duties of the position, excluding marginal functions, and identifies factors for deciding whether a function is essential.

Mulhern v. Eastman Kodak Co. · filed 2002-01-25(n)

The term “essential functions,” which is not defined in the statutes themselves, is generally defined in ADA regulations promulgated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) to mean the “fundamental” duties to be performed in the position in question, but not functions that are merely “marginal,” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(l) (1996). ... 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n). Plainly, the considerations set out in this regulation are fact-intensive. Usually no one listed factor will be dispositive, and the regulations themselves state that the eviden-tiary examples provided are not meant to be exhaustive. ... Applying these principles of law to the facts of this case, the Court finds that plaintiff has raised a triable issue of fact as to whether or not it was an essential job requirement that he rotate to 3R. ... Accordingly, the Court finds that there are triable issues as to whether or not plaintiff could perform the essential functions of his job with or without accommodation.

Section 1630.2(n)(1) treats an employment position’s essential functions as its fundamental job duties, which the claimant must be able to perform to qualify for ADA protection.

Hensley v. Gorda · filed 1997-01-06(n)(1)

The term "essential functions" means the fundamental job duties of the employment position. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1). Consideration must be given to the employer's judgment of what functions of a job are essential. 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8); Cheatwood. ... If an ADA claimant cannot perform the essential functions of the job, such claimant is not entitled to the protection of the ADA. ... In the case before us, the record is not susceptible of an inference that Hensley is a qualified individual with a disability. At the hearing below she presented no testimony as to what functions of the job are essential, or whether or not she could perform the job.

The regulation defines essential functions as the fundamental duties of the position, excluding marginal duties.

Allen v. Texas Department of · filed 1997-04-21(n)(1)

Essential functions are “the fundamental job duties of the employment position the individual with a disability holds,” excluding “the marginal functions of the position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1). TDHS presented summary judgment evidence that Allen’s requested accommodations would eliminate 70 percent of her job’s essential functions.

Section 1630.2(n)(2)(i)-(iii) identifies three factors relevant to deciding whether a job function is essential: why the position exists, whether few employees can perform the function, and whether the function is highly specialized.

Holbrook v. City of Alpharetta · filed 1997-05-22(n)(2)(i)-(iii)

Regulations promulgated under the ADA further identify three factors that can be considered pursuant to an inquiry regarding whether a particular task is an essential part of a job: (1) the reason the position exists is to perform the function; (2) there are a limited number of employees available among whom the performance of the job function can be distributed; and (3) the function is highly specialized so that the incumbent in the position was hired for his or her expertise or ability to perform the particular function. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(2)(i)-(iii). ... Even assuming that an Alpharetta police detective spends a relatively small amount of time performing the type of field work that Holbrook concedes he cannot undertake, the record establishes—and Holbrook has not proven to the contrary—that the collection of all evidence at the scene of a crime is an essential function of being a police detective in the City of Alpharetta.

Section 1630.2(n) defines essential functions as a job’s basic, fundamental duties rather than marginal functions and identifies factors relevant to deciding whether a function is essential, including employer judgment, written job descriptions, time spent, consequences of nonperformance, past incumbents’ experience, and similar employees’ current experience.

Barber v. Nabors Drilling USA · filed 1997-12-15(n)

The phrase “essential functions” of an employment position means the basic, fundamental duties of the job the person with a disability holds or desires. Essential functions do not include the marginal functions of the position. A job function may be considered essential for any of several reasons, including but not limited to the following: (1) because the reason the position exists is to perform that function, (2) because of the limited number of employees available among whom the performance of that job function can be distributed, and/or, (3) because the function may be highly specialized so that a person is hired for his expertise or ability to perform that particular function. In determining whether a particular function is essential, you may consider: (1) the employer’s judgment as to which functions are essential, (2) written job descriptions prepared before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job, (3) the amount of time spent on the job perfoming the function, (4) the consequences of not requiring the employee to perform the function, (5) the work experience of past incumbents in the job, and/or (6) the current work experience of persons with similar jobs.

Section 1630.2(n) requires essential-function determinations to be made case by case using all relevant factors, including the employer’s judgment, whether the position exists to perform the function, and the number of available employees who can perform it.

Rent a Center v. Industrial Commission · filed 1998-02-26(n)

Whether a function is essential is determined on a ease-by-case basis, taking into consideration all relevant factors, including the employer’s judgment, whether the position exists to provide for the performance of the function, and the number of employees available to perform the function. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n). RAC asserts that repossessing furniture, appliances, and other property is not an essential function of the account representative position. The record belies this assertion. It shows that a RAC store has only a manager, an assistant manager, two account representatives, and one delivery driver. All are full-time employees. The duties of an account representative include repossessing property. There is no one else available at a RAC store to perform repossessions. Moreover, repossessions are closely connected with the account representative’s servicing of his particular accounts. We thus conclude that repossessing property, which entails moving furniture, appliances, and other property from the customer’s home to the RAC store, is an essential function of the account representative’s job.

A job function may be considered essential because the position exists to perform that function; the court applied this principle to a security guard’s duty to observe and report.

Vincent v. Wells Fargo Guard Services, Inc. of Florida · filed 1998-03-10(n)(2)(I)

Thus, Vincent’s basic function as a Wells Fargo guard falls squarely within the terms of 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(2)(I) which provides that “[a] job function may be considered essential because the reason the position exists is to perform that function.”

The essential-function inquiry considers the nonexclusive factors in § 1630.2(n)(3), including the employer’s judgment, staffing needs, and collective-bargaining-agreement terms, and the employee bears the burden of showing that she can perform all essential functions.

Laurin v. The Providence Hospital and Massachusetts Nurses Association · filed 1998-07-28(n)(3)

Indeed, all the competent evidence relating to the seven nonexclusive factors identified in 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3) weighed overwhelmingly in favor of the Hospital. ... The 24-hour hospital unit setting thus affords a particularly compelling context in which to defer to rational staffing judgments by hospital employers based on the genuine necessities of the hospital business. ... Section 4.05 of the CBA likewise supported the Hospital’s judgment that shift rotation is an “essential function” of a daynurse position in its maternity unit.

Section 1630.2(n)(3) provides factors for determining whether a job function is essential, including the employer’s judgment, written job descriptions, the consequences of not performing the function, and work experience or collective bargaining terms.

Kees v. Wallenstein · filed 1998-11-25(n)(3)

We have carefully considered each factor listed in 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)(1997) for determining whether a particular job function is essential. The record indicates that both the employer and the written job description identify inmate contact as a fundamental duty. Although corrections officers assigned to the control room are not expected to have inmate contact on a regular basis, plaintiffs acknowledged that some incidental contact is inevitable. Further, their ability to restrain inmates during an emergency is critical to jail security. In fact, several corrections officers testified that jail safety is currently jeopardized by appellants’ inability to respond to emergencies. Finally, the relevant collective bargaining agreement indicates that King County corrections officers are expected to rotate among several positions, most of which require inmate contact.

Section 1630.2(n)(2) identifies reasons a job function may be essential, including that the position exists to perform it, too few employees can share it, or it requires specialized expertise.

Robertson v. Neuromedical Center · filed 1998-12-03(n)(2)

After a review of the record, we conclude that the “administrative portion” of Dr. Robertson’s job is unquestionably one of its essential functions. Contrary to the Robertson’s blatant attempt to minimize its importance, we believe: (1) that the administrative portion of Dr. Robertson’s job is one of the major reasons why his position existed in the first place; (2) that Dr. Robertson, as a neurologist was one of the few employees at the NMC to whom those administrative duties could have been distributed; and (3) that the highly specialized administrative portion of the job could not be transferred to someone without expertise in that area without destroying the utility of the job altogether.

Section 1630.2(n)(2) permits a job function to be treated as essential when the position exists to perform it or the limited number of employees prevents distributing the function among them.

Burch v. City of Nacogdoches · filed 1999-05-27(n)(2)

Although the Act itself does not define what those requirements are exactly, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s regulations allow functions to be defined as “essential” because, inter alia, “the reason the position exists is to perform that function; [and] . . . because of the limited number of employees available among whom the performance of that job function can be distributed.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(2).

Section 1630.2(n)(3) identifies nonexclusive evidence relevant to determining whether a job function is essential, including the employer's judgment, written job descriptions, time spent, consequences of not performing it, collective bargaining terms, past incumbents' experience, and similar jobs' incumbents' current experience.

Lusby v. Metropolitan Wash Airports Auth · filed 1999-08-09(n)(3)

Lusby maintains that a fair application of these factors to his performance as a Firefighter/Assistant Fire Marshal reveals a genuine issue of material fact as to whether emergency response was an essential function of his position. We disagree. Clearly, in the Airports Authority's judgment, emergency response was an essential function of the Firefighter/Assistant Fire Marshal position. ... Thus, it is clear that no reasonable fact-finder could conclude anything other than that Lusby's position included the essential duty to engage in emergency response when necessary, which potentially exposed him to intense physical exertion, environmental extremes, and emotional stress, any of which could fatally aggravate his heart condition.

The regulation defines essential functions as fundamental job duties, excludes marginal duties, and supplies factors for deciding whether a function is essential.

Switala v. Schwan's Sales Enterprise · filed 2002-10-22(n)(l), (n)(2), and (n)(3)

The term “essential functions” means “the fundamental job duties of the employment position the individual with a disability holds or desires. The term ‘essential functions’ does not include the marginal functions of the position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(l).

Section 1630.2(n)(l) defines the essential functions of a job as the fundamental duties of the employment position.

Voisin v. Georgia Gulf Corp. · filed 2002-11-04(n)(l)

The term “essential functions of the job” is defined as “the fundamental job duties of the employment position the disabled employee holds or desires.”

The regulation treats essential functions as the fundamental duties of a position, not marginal ones, and allows the consequences of not requiring a function to support treating it as essential.

Shannon v. New York City Transit Authority · filed 2003-06-13(n)(1), (n)(3)(iv)

"Essential functions" are defined under EEOC regulations to mean the "`fundamental' duties to be performed in the position in question, but not functions that are merely `marginal.'" Stone v. City of Mount Vernon, 118 F.3d 92, 97 (2d Cir.1997) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1) (1996)). ... Color differentiation is a qualification that NYCTA may properly deem essential for driving a bus because it conduces to the safety of passengers and because it serves to limit NYCTA's tort liability in situations where color-blindness might cause an accident as well as where it may be alleged to have done so. See Stone v. City of Mt. Vernon, 118 F.3d 92, 97 (1997) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)(iv) for proposition that a function may be essential because of the "consequences of not requiring [the employee] to perform the function").

Section 1630.2 requires consideration of the employer’s judgment, written job descriptions, time spent on a function, the consequences of not requiring it, and the work experiences of employees when determining whether a job function is essential.

Doner v. City of Rockford · filed 2003-10-08(n)

To determine whether a job function is essential, we consider a number of factors, including the employer’s judgment, written job descriptions, the amount of time spent on the function, the consequences of not requiring the function, and the work experiences of those performing the job.

Section 1630.2(n)(1) defines essential functions as the fundamental duties of a position, excluding marginal duties, and subsection (n)(3) permits consideration of specified evidence beyond the employer’s judgment.

Baker v. Potter · filed 2003-12-02(n)(1), (n)(3)

The “essential functions” of a job consist of “the fundamental duties of the employment position the individual with a disability holds,” and “do[ ] not include the marginal functions of the position.” ... The court also may consider other evidence of a job’s essential functions, including “[t]he amount of time spent on the job performing the function; ... [t]he consequences of not requiring the incumbent to perform the function; ... [t]he terms of a collective bargaining agreement; ... [t]he work experience, of past incumbents in the job; and/or ... [t]he current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs.”

Section 1630.2(n)(3) identifies evidence that may establish essential job functions, and the court held that the employer met its burden by presenting the CNC machinist job description and evidence of the job's physical and safety requirements.

McClean v. Case Corp., Inc. · filed 2004-04-20(n)(3)

An essential function may be established by evidence that includes: ... 1) [t]he employer’s judgment as to which functions are essential; 2)[w]rit-ten job descriptions prepared before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job; 3) the amount of time spent on the job performing the function; 4) the consequences of not requiring the incumbent to perform the function; and 5) the current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs. ... The job description for a CNC machinist states that it requires continuous standing for ten hours or more, repetitive reaching, pushing, and bending. The job also requires working on or around moving machinery and driving a forklift. A CNC machinist must lift between 10 and 34 pounds frequently and 35 to 50 pounds occasionally. The job also requires operating a machine to remove metal from stock pieces. Plaintiffs Statement of Material Facts includes this same description of the work MeClean performed as a CNC machinist, and it includes the requirement that MeClean had to operate an overhead hoist occasionally. Defendant has met its burden of presenting some evidence of the essential functions of the job.

Section 1630.2(n)(3) lists non-exhaustive factors courts may consider when deciding whether a job function is essential, including the employer’s judgment, written job descriptions, time spent performing the function, the consequences of not requiring it, and the work experience of incumbents.

Reynolds v. International Business MacHines Corp. · filed 2004-05-26(n)(3)

The regulations also set a non-exhaustive list of factors a court may consider when considering whether a particular function is essential: ... (i) The employer’s judgment as to which functions are essential; ... (ii) Written job descriptions prepared before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job; ... (iii) The amount of time spent on the job performing the function; ... (iv) The consequences of not requiring the incumbent to perform the function; ... (vi) The work experience of past incumbents in the job; and/or ... (vii) The current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs. ... 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3). ... While this is a factor which indicates that these two aspects of the job may not be essential functions, there is uncontradicted evidence that Mr. Reynolds knew, as early as the interview process, that he would need to “learn additional information relative to information technology along the way.” (Reynolds Dep. at 240-41). ... Mr. Reynolds, therefore, is not a “qualified individual” under the ADA because he cannot show that, at the time he was discharged, he was able to perform one of the essential functions of his position with or without reasonable accommodation.

Section 1630.2(n) treats the fundamental duties of a position as its essential functions and requires an otherwise-qualified plaintiff to be able to perform them.

Davis v. Thompson · filed 2005-03-24(n)

To satisfy this requirement, a plaintiff must establish that he can perform the “essential functions” of his position; i.e., the fundamental job duties of the employment position. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n).

Section 1630.2(n)(3) identifies the employer’s judgment, written job descriptions, time spent on a function, and the experience of current or former employees as factors for determining whether a job function is essential.

Rooney, Daniel P. v. Koch Air, LLC · filed 2005-06-06(n)(3)

To determine whether a job function is essential, we look to the employer’s judgment, written job descriptions, the amount of time spent on the function, and the experience of those who previously or currently hold the position. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3); Basith v. Cook County, 241 F.3d 919, 927 (7th Cir. 2001).

Section 1630.2(n)(3) directs courts to consider the employer's judgment, written job descriptions, time spent on a function, and the experience of current or former employees when determining whether a job function is essential.

Administrator of the Estate of Mendez v. City of Chicago · filed 2006-03-14(n)(3)

“To determine whether a job function is essential, we look to the employer's judgment, written job descriptions, the amount of time spent on the function, and the experience of those who previously or currently hold the position.” ... “Thus, based on the record before us, patrolling the Kedzie garage constituted an essential job function, which Mendez undisputedly cannot perform.”

Section 1630.2(n)(1) treats a fundamental job duty as an essential function and excludes marginal duties; applying that framework, physical presence can be essential when the job requires on-site interaction with machines and personnel.

Mulloy v. Acushnet Company · filed 2006-08-24(n)(1)

An 'essential function' is a fundamental job duty of the position at issue . . . [it] does not include the marginal functions of the position. ... We therefore agree with Acushnet that the job description for an electrical engineer supports Acushnet's argument that Mulloy's physical presence was an essential function of his job.

Section 1630.2(n)(2) says a job function may be essential because the position exists to perform it or because few employees are available to distribute it among.

Jones v. University of the District of Columbia · filed 2007-08-17(n)(2)

To determine whether a job function is an essential component of a position, the regulations advise that “[t]he function may be essential because the reason the position exists is to perform that function [or] ... because of the limited number of employees available among whom performance of that job function can be distributed.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(2). Additionally, the court should consider the position for which the plaintiff was hired, not a more limited position that the plaintiff actually performed.

The regulation treats an essential job function as a fundamental job duty rather than a marginal function.

Crevier v. Town of Spencer · filed 2008-09-26(n)(l)

EEOC regulations state that a job function is “essential” if it is a “fundamental job dut[y]” and not a “marginal function.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(l). ... Plaintiff has thus established that there are genuine issues of fact in dispute, sufficient to defeat summary judgment on the question of whether she was able to meet the essential functions of her job, with or without reasonable accommodation.

Section 1630.2(n) identifies evidence relevant to determining a job’s essential functions, including time spent performing the function, the consequences of not performing it, and the terms of a collective bargaining agreement.

Green v. CSX Hotels, Inc. · filed 2009-01-15(n)

Evidence that a court may consider in making this determination also includes, among other things, the amount of time an employee spends performing the function, the consequences of not performing the function, and the terms of a collective bargaining agreement. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n).

Section 1630.2(n)(1) defines essential functions as the fundamental duties of a position, rather than marginal functions.

Colby v. Pye & Hogan LLC · filed 2009-03-13(n)(1)

“The term ‘essential functions,’ which is not defined in the ADA itself, is defined in ADA regulations promulgated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission generally to mean the ‘fundamental’ duties of the position in question, but not functions that are merely ‘marginal,’ 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(l) (1999).”

Section 1630.2(n)(1) treats fundamental job duties as essential functions and excludes marginal duties; whether a duty is essential is decided case by case.

Richardson v. Honda Manufacturing of Alabama, LLC · filed 2009-07-22(n)(1)

Further, the court agrees with Richardson that, to the extent this sit-down tugger position requires some bending when placing wires in low feeder racks, a material factual dispute exists over whether such a function is “essential” or “marginal” with respect to the performance of the job. ... Accordingly, the court concludes that Richardson has adequately demonstrated the existence of a material factual dispute over whether standing for more than three hours and bending are essential functions of the sit-down tugger position and, therefore, summary judgment in favor of HMA as to the essential functions of that particular job is not appropriate.

(n)(3) identifies evidence, in addition to the employer’s judgment, that courts consider when deciding whether a job function is essential, including written job descriptions, time spent performing the function, consequences of not requiring it, and past incumbents’ work experience.

Moore v. Computer Associates International, Inc. · filed 2009-09-02(n)(3)

According to the regulations, six criteria, in addition to the employer’s judgment, must be taken into account for this determination, four of which are relevant here: “(ii) Written job descriptions prepared before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job; (iii) The amount of time spent on the job performing the function; (iv) The consequences of not requiring the incumbent to perform the function ... [and] (vi) The work experience of past incumbents in the job ...” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3). ... Thus, there is no genuine issue of material fact that Plaintiffs IC position required significant amounts of travel and face-to-face interaction with clients, both of which were essential functions of the position.

Section 1630.2(n) defines essential functions as the fundamental duties of a job and identifies the employer’s judgment and a pre-advertising written job description as evidence of whether a duty is essential.

McBride v. BIC Consumer Products Manufacturing Company, Inc. · filed 2009-10-05(n)(1), (n)(3)

Although the term “essential functions” is not defined by the ADA, regulations promulgated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) indicate that it encompasses “the fundamental job duties of the employment position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1); see also Rodal, 369 F.3d at 120. Evidence of whether a particular job duty constitutes an essential function includes, inter alia, “the employer’s judgment as to what functions of a job are essential” and “a written description [prepared by the employer] before advertising and interviewing applicants.” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8); see also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3).

Section 1630.2(n) treats essential functions as fundamental job duties, and reliable attendance may be an essential function when the job requires employees to be present.

VandenBroek v. PSEG Power Ct LLC · filed 2009-12-11(n)(l)

“Essential functions” are duties that are “fundamental” to the job in question. ... Applying these principles to this case, we conclude that reliable attendance at scheduled shifts was an essential function of a boiler utility operator at the Bridgeport Harbor Station Power Plant.

Section 1630.2(n)(3) requires consideration of written job descriptions and the current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs when determining whether a function is essential; evidence that some employees in a job classification never perform an alleged requirement can create a factual issue as to whether it is essential.

Acevedo v. City of Philadelphia · filed 2010-01-21(n)(3), (n)(3)(vii)

As the applicable regulations under the Rehabilitation Act specifically direct consideration of a written description, 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3), the Court must find that this document calls into doubt Defendant’s definition of the essential functions of a police officer position. ... By the same token, however, federal regulations specifically mandate that a court consider “[t]he current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)(vii) (2010). Thus, where there are positions within a particular job classification where an employee never has to perform certain alleged requirements, a genuine issue of material fact arises as to whether those requirements are in fact “essential.”

Section 1630.2(n) identifies nonexclusive reasons a job function may be essential and relevant evidence for that determination, including staffing limits, employer judgment, written job descriptions, and time spent performing the function.

Richardson v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp. · filed 2010-02-05(n)(2), (n)(3)

All of this evidence indicates that Richardson spent a substantial amount of time on the job performing manual tasks around the restaurant. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)(iii) ("Evidence that a particular function is essential includes . . . [t]he amount of time spent on the job performing the function . . . ."). ... We conclude that any reasonable jury presented with the summary judgment record here would find that it was essential for Richardson to "assist in kitchen, dining and take-out operations," and that she had to be capable of performing a broad range of manual tasks in order to carry out that function.

Section 1630.2(n)(1) defines essential functions as the fundamental duties of the position and excludes marginal duties; the court used that definition to find the complaint did not allege facts showing the plaintiff could perform her job's essential functions.

Blackburn v. Trustees of Guilford Technical Community College · filed 2010-08-17(n)(1)

“Essential functions” means “the fundamental job duties of the employment position the individual with a disability holds or desires” and “does not include the marginal functions of the position.”

Section 1630.2(n)(1) defines a position’s essential functions as its fundamental job duties rather than its marginal functions, and whether a function is essential is determined case by case based on all relevant evidence.

Supinski v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · filed 2011-02-15(n)(1)

In general terms, the “essential functions” of a position are the “fundamental job duties,” as opposed to the “marginal functions.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1). ... As we have repeatedly recognized, “whether a particular function is essential „is a factual determination that must be made on a case by case basis [based upon] all relevant evidence.‟” Deane, 142 F.3d at 148 (quoting 29 C.F.R. pt. 1630, app. § 1630.2(n)) (alteration in original); accord Turner, 440 F.3d at 612; Skerski v. Time Warner Cable Co., 257 F.3d 273, 279 (3d Cir. 2001). ... Given the lack of evidence regarding the nature and extent of the lifting requirements of the car washer/unloader and feeder driver positions, we cannot conclude a reasonable jury would be compelled to find lifting in excess of Supinski‟s restrictions was an essential function of either position. Accordingly, we hold the District Court erred in concluding, as a matter of law, that Supinski was not a qualified individual because the lifting requirements of these positions exceeded his physical capacity.

Section 1630.2(n)(3) directs courts to consider the employer’s judgment, written job descriptions, consequences of not requiring a function, and experience of comparable incumbents when determining essential job functions.

Fisher v. Vizioncore, Incorpor · filed 2011-07-20(n)(3)

To determine a job’s essential functions, we consider the employer’s judgment, any written job descriptions, the consequences of not requiring the incumbent to perform the function, and the work experience of any current incumbents in similar jobs. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3); Basith v. Cook County, 241 F.3d 919, 927 (7th Cir. 2001).

(n)(1) identifies fact-intensive factors for deciding whether a job function is essential, including the employer’s judgment, written job descriptions, time spent performing the function, consequences of not requiring it, collective-bargaining references, and employees’ work experience.

Jernigan v. Dalton Management Co. · filed 2011-07-29(n)(1)

“However, ‘the considerations set out in [the] regulation are fact-intensive. Usually no one listed factor will be dispositive[.]’ ” ... Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and drawing all reasonable inferences in his favor, I cannot say as a matter of law that essential functions of Jernigan’s position included tasks such as cleaning and painting that required chemical-fume exposure. Thus, it is reasonable to infer that Jernigan was a qualified individual — able to perform all of his position’s essential functions — for purposes of making an ADA claim.

The factors listed in § 1630.2(n)(2) do not limit the court’s analysis of whether a job function is essential.

Robert v. Carter · filed 2011-05-03(n)(2)

Furthermore, the Court is not limited in its analysis of essential job functions to the factors in § 1630.2(n)(2) that Mr. Robert outlines.

Section 1630.2(n)(1) defines essential functions as the fundamental duties of the job and excludes marginal duties.

Blackburn v. Trustees of Guilford Technical Community College · filed 2011-09-30(n)(1)

“Essential functions” means “the fundamental job duties of the employment position the individual with a disability holds or desires” and “does not include the marginal functions of the position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(l).

Section 1630.2(n)(1) defines essential functions as the fundamental job duties of a position.

Johnson v. Cleveland City School District · filed 2011-11-15(n)(1)

An individual who is “otherwise qualified” for a position is someone who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the position. The term “essential functions” means “the fundamental job duties” of a position. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1).

Section 1630.2(n) treats the ability to perform a job's essential functions, with or without a reasonable accommodation, as a required element of an ADA failure-to-accommodate claim; essential functions can include showing up for work and being able to use the restroom at work.

Scalera v. Electrograph Systems, Inc. · filed 2012-03-26(n)

A plaintiff who brings an action under the ADA for failure to make reasonable accommodations must establish that he or she can perform the essential functions of the job, either unaided or with the assistance of a reasonable accommodation. ... As an initial matter, courts have recognized that the essential functions of a job are much broader than those duties that are specifically tied to the particular position the employee is hired to fulfill. Indeed, one such essential function of an employee’s job is showing up for work. ... In addition, at least one court has concluded that “being able to use the restroom at work can allow an employee to perform the essential functions of the job.”

Section 1630.2(n)(2) treats a job function as essential when the position exists to perform it, only a limited number of employees can perform it, or it requires special expertise.

Knutson v. Schwan's Home Service, Inc. · filed 2012-04-27(n)(2)

A function is essential when the position exists to perform that function, the function may be only performed by a limited number of employees or it requires special expertise. ... Therefore, the court finds that being DOT qualified to drive a delivery truck was an essential function of Knutson’s job.

Section 1630.2(n)(3) identifies additional factors for determining whether a job function is essential, including the time spent on it, the consequences of not requiring it, collective-bargaining terms, and the work experience of current and past incumbents.

Feldman v. Olin Corporation · filed 2012-08-27(n)(3)

Under ADA regulations, “other factors to consider are: (1) the amount of time spent on the job performing the function, (2) the consequences of not requiring the incumbent to perform the function, (3) the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, (4) the work experience of past incumbents in the job, and (5) the current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs.” D’Angelo v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 422 F.3d 1220, 1230 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)).

Section 1630.2(n)(1) treats fundamental duties rather than marginal duties as essential functions, and § 1630.2(n)(3) directs courts to consider factors such as the employer’s judgment, written job descriptions, time spent, and the consequences of not requiring the function.

Hill v. Walker · filed 2013-01-18(n)(1), (n)(3)

“Essential functions of a position are the fundamental duties of the job, but not its marginal functions.” ... Determining whether a job function is essential is a highly fact-intensive inquiry in which the Court must consider, among other things: ... (1) the employer’s judgment as to which functions are essential; (2) written job descriptions prepared before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job; (3) the amount of time spent on the job performing the function; (4) the consequences of not requiring the [employee] to perform the function. ... The defendants have convincingly demonstrated that handling stressful cases involving hostile and abusive persons is an essential function of the Family Service Worker position, and no reasonable juror could conclude otherwise.

Section 1630.2(n)(1) treats a fundamental duty, rather than a marginal responsibility, as an essential job function; the court held that direct patient care was an essential function of a head nurse's job.

Davis v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp. · filed 2013-01-25(n)(1)

Davis contends that direct patient care is only a marginal responsibility of a head nurse, see 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1), whose fundamental responsibility is the supervision and coordination of such care by others. The very document Davis relies on for this argument defeats it. The listed responsibilities of a head nurse all serve to ensure proper patient care. While a head nurse bears the responsibility for ensuring that the staff of nurses under her supervision provides that care, she must also be able to provide direct patient care herself whenever necessary. This evidence would not permit a factfinder to conclude that direct patient care is not an essential function of the job of head nurse.

Section 1630.2(n)(2) identifies factors a court may consider in deciding whether a job function is essential, including the employer’s judgment, written job descriptions, time spent performing the function, collective bargaining terms, and employee experience.

McMillan v. City of New York · filed 2013-03-04(n)(2)

Although a court will give considerable deference to an employer’s determination as to what functions are essential, there are a number of relevant factors that may influence a court’s ultimate conclusion as to a position’s essential functions. Stone v. City of Mt. Vernon, 118 F.3d 92, 97 (2d Cir. 1997) (stating that relevant factors to consider include the employer’s judgment, written job descriptions, the amount of time spent on the job performing the function, the mention of the function in a collective bargaining agreement, the work experience of past employees in the position, and the work experience of current employees in similar positions (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(2)). “Usually, no one listed factor will be dispositive.” Id. A court must avoid deciding cases based on “unthinking reliance on intuition about the methods by which jobs are to be performed.” Borkowski, 63 F.3d at 140. Instead, a court must conduct “a fact-specific inquiry into both the employer’s description of a job and how the job is actually performed in practice.”

Subsection (n)(3) directs courts to consider the employer’s judgment, written job descriptions, time spent on the function, and the experience of current or former workers when deciding whether a job function is essential.

Majors v. General Electric Company · filed 2013-04-16(n)(3)

First, “[t]o determine whether a job function is essential, we look to the employer’s judgment, written job descriptions, the amount of time spent on the function, and the experience of those who previously or currently hold the position.” Rooney v. Koch Air, LLC, 410 F.3d 376, 382 (7th Cir. 2005) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)). ... We agree with the district court that lifting objects weighing more than twenty pounds is an essential function of the purchased material auditor position.

Section 1630.2(n)(3)(i) identifies the employer's judgment about which job functions are essential as relevant evidence when determining whether a function is essential.

Fey v. State of Washington Community Colleges of Spokane · filed 2013-04-18(n)(3)(i)

Federal regulations provide a nonexclusive list of evidence relevant to whether a function is essential. The first is evidence of "[t]he employer's judgment as to which functions are essential." 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)(i).

The regulation identifies essential functions as the fundamental job duties that an employee with a disability is actually required to perform.

Chancey v. Fairfield Southern Co. · filed 2013-06-12(n)(2)(I)

“ ‘Essential functions’ are the fundamental job duties of a position that an individual with a disability is actually required to perform.”

A job function is essential when removing it would fundamentally alter the position, and full-time work may therefore be treated as an essential function.

Darla White v. Standard Insurance Company · filed 2013-06-28(n)

A job function is essential if its removal would “fundamentally alter” the position. Kiphart v. Saturn Corp., 251 F.3d 573, 584 (6th Cir. 2001) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n) app. at 356). SFI established that full-time work was an essential function of White’s CSA position.

Section 1630.2(n)(3) identifies considerations used to determine whether a job function is essential, including the employer’s judgment, preexisting written job descriptions, and the time spent performing the function.

Gober v. Frankel Family Trust · filed 2013-07-31(n)(3)(i)

To make the initial determination of whether a job function is essential, among our considerations are “[t]he employer’s judgment as to which functions are essential; [w]ritten job descriptions prepared before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job; [and] [t]he amount of time spent on the job performing the function.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)(i)-(iii). We also may consider whether there is evidence that the employer actually requires employees in the particular position to perform the function. See id. § 1630.2(n)(3)(vi)-(vii).