29 C.F.R. § 1630.2

The regulation defines essential functions as fundamental job duties and identifies the evidence used to determine whether a function is essential.

McCracken v. Carleton College · filed 2013-08-26(n)(1), (n)(3)

Essential functions are “fundamental job duties of the employment position the individual with a disability holds or desires.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(l). Evidence of whether a particular function is essential includes: the employer’s opinion as to which functions are essential, written job descriptions, amount of time spent on the job performing the function, consequences of not requiring the employee to perform the function, terms of a collective bargaining agreement, work experience of employees who previously held the job, and/or current work experience. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3).

Section 1630.2(n) defines essential functions as fundamental job duties rather than marginal functions and identifies factors for deciding whether a function is essential.

Jernigan v. BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC · filed 2014-03-31(n)(1)-(3)

The court then proceeded to apply all factors set forth in the applicable EEOC regulations and guidelines in reviewing the evidence. ... The record in the instant case, viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff similarly provides an ample basis upon which a reasonable jury could determine that Plaintiff met BellSouth qualification requirements for the Service Technician position if reasonable accommodations were provided.

Section 1630.2(n) treats essential functions as fundamental job duties rather than marginal ones and directs courts to consider evidence such as the employer’s judgment and a preexisting written job description.

Hunt-Watts v. Nassau Health Care Corp. · filed 2014-08-21(n)(1), (n)(3)

“ ‘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.’ ” ... “29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n). In evaluating whether a work duty is an essential function, and as discussed more fully below, two factors are most central. First, “ ‘[a] court must give considerable deference to an employer’s judgment regarding what functions are essential for service in a particular position.’ ” ... Second, courts also should consider an employer’s written job description, if one exists, as evidence of an essential function. ... In sum, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the existence of a triable issue of fact with respect to the essential functions of the podiatrist position, which, at a minimum, include the performance of surgeries and other medical procedures.”

Section 1630.2(n) requires consideration of the employer’s judgment about which job functions are essential, but that judgment does not by itself establish essential functions or satisfy the employer’s summary-judgment burden.

Anderson v. General Motors, LLC · filed 2014-09-12(n)

Although “[c]onsideration shall be given to the employer’s judgment as to what functions of a job are essential,” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n), this does not mean that GM is excused from its burden on summary judgment, nor does it mean that GM can merely assert that Anderson could not meet unspecified requirements in order to merit summary judgment.

Section 1630.2(n)(3) provides that courts may consider nonexclusive types of evidence, including the employer’s judgment, job descriptions, and the experience of past and current employees, when determining a position’s essential functions.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Staffmark Investment LLC · filed 2014-09-04(n)(3)

To determine the essential functions of a position, a court may consider, but is not limited to, evidence of the employer’s judgment of a position, written job descriptions prepared before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job, the work experience of past incumbents of the job, and the work experience of current incumbents in similar jobs.

Section 1630.2(n) directs consideration of the employer’s judgment in identifying a job’s essential functions, including regular accessibility during scheduled work time.

Taylor-Novotny v. Health Alliance Medical Plans · filed 2014-11-26(n)

The ADA provides that “consideration shall be given to the employer’s judgment as to what functions of a job are essential.” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n). Health Alliance considered it essential that, regardless whether an employee was working from the Health Alliance office or from home, the employee be accessible at regular times to supervisors, staff, and customers.

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

Walz v. Ameriprise Financial, Inc. · filed 2015-03-09(n)(1)

Essential functions are “the fundamental job duties of the employment position.” Moritz v. Frontier Airlines, Inc., 147 F.3d 784, 787 (8th Cir. 1998) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1)). “The term ‘essential functions’ does not include the marginal functions of the position.” Id. (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1)).

Section 1630.2(n) treats fundamental duties as essential functions and directs courts to weigh the employer’s judgment, job description, time spent, consequences, and other listed factors, with the employer’s judgment important but not controlling.

Shell v. Smith · filed 2015-06-15(n)(1), (n)(2), (n)(3)

An essential function is a fundamental job duty required of a person in the job; a marginal duty is not an essential function. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1). ... Factors that may be taken into account when determining whether a job duty constitutes an essential function include: ... (i) The employer’s judgment as to which functions are essential; ... (vii) The current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3). ... The employer’s determination about what functions are essential is certainly given weight, but it is one of seven factors the court should consider, including “[t]he amount of time spent on the job performing the function” and “[t]he consequences of not requiring the [employee] to perform the function.”

Section 1630.2(n) directs consideration of listed factors in deciding whether physical presence is an essential job function.

Meachem v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water Division · filed 2015-08-10(n)

Considering such factors, the Court finds that the majority are in favor of finding physical presence non-essential.

Section 1630.2(n) identifies factors relevant to determining whether a job function is essential, including the limited number of employees available to perform it.

Szasz v. Dolgencorp, LLC · filed 2015-09-02(n)

Under those factors, a particular job function may be deemed essential “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).

Section 1630.2(n)(1)-(3) defines essential functions as the fundamental duties of a position rather than marginal functions and directs courts to consider listed factors in determining them.

Dunderdale v. United Airlines, Inc. · filed 2015-12-03(n)(1)-(3)

Also, the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) regulations provide that the essential functions are the “fundamental job duties” of a position, rather than the position’s “marginal functions,” and that courts should examine several factors to determine essential functions.

Section 1630.2(n)(2)(i) recognizes that a job function may be essential because the position exists to perform that function; applying that principle, the court held that remaining awake was an essential function of a security guard's job.

Tsuji v. Kamehameha Schools · filed 2015-12-22(n)(2)(i)

Further, “[t]he function may be essential because the reason the position exists is to perform that function.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(2)(i). ... Kamehameha Schools produces evidence establishing an obvious requirement that remaining awake is an essential function of Tsuji’s job as a security guard.

Section 1630.2(n) identifies nonexclusive evidence relevant to 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 agreements, and work experience.

Pesce v. New York City Police Department · filed 2016-02-05(n)

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 incumbents in the job; and/or (vii) The current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs.

Section 1630.2(n) defines essential job functions as fundamental duties rather than marginal functions and directs courts to weigh specified factors, including the employer’s judgment and written job description, in deciding whether a function is essential.

Department of Human Services v. State Personnel Board · filed 2016-03-10(n)(1), (n)(2), (n)(3)

Essential job 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)(1). They do not include "marginal functions of the position." Id. A job function may be considered essential for any of several reasons, including that (1) the position exists to perform that function; (2) there are a limited number of employees available among whom that function can be distributed; or (3) the function is highly specialized so that the plaintiff was hired for her expertise or ability to perform that particular function. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(2). ... And, even giving considerable weight to DHS’s classification of the duties as essential, we still cannot conclude, based on a consideration of the other factors that comprise an essential job function analysis, see 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3), that the Board’s conclusion lacked substantial record support.

Section 1630.2(n)(1) treats the essential functions of a job as its fundamental duties, and the court applied that concept to regular attendance as an essential function of a head teller's position.

Boileau v. Capital Bank Financial Corp. · filed 2016-04-25(n)(1)

A plaintiff can show that she is qualified by demonstrating that she can perform the essential functions or “fundamental [] duties” of the job. White v. Interstate Distrib. Co., 438 F. App’x 415, 418 (6th Cir. 2011); see also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1). ... Capital Bank contends that regular attendance is part of a head teller’s essential job functions. ... Therefore, the record supports that Boileau was not qualified for the position because she could not meet the attendance requirement.

Section 1630.2(n)(1) treats whether a job duty is an essential function as turning on whether it is fundamental to the employment position, with the determination made factually and case by case.

Yanoski v. Silgan White Cap Americas, LLC · filed 2016-04-27(n)(1)

This part of the inquiry, whether a job duty is an “essential function,” turns on whether .it is, “fundamental” to the employment position. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(l). This is a “factual determination made on a case by case basis.”

Section 1630.2 defines essential functions as the fundamental duties of the position and directs courts to consider listed evidence, including the employer’s judgment, written job descriptions, time spent, consequences of inability, and work experience.

Adair v. City of Muskogee · filed 2016-05-26(n)(1), (n)(3)

The ADAAA’s implementing regulations, promulgated by the EEOC, provide that “[t]he 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)(1) (2015). ... To determine whether a particular function is essential, we consider, among other things, (1) the employer’s judgment as to which functions are essential; (2) written job descriptions; (3) the time spent performing the particular function; (4) the consequences if the individual cannot perform the function; (5) any collective-bargaining agreement; (6) the work experience of those in the position in the past; and (7) the current work experience of those in similar positions. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3).

Section 1630.2(n)(2) identifies circumstances making a job function essential, and § 1630.2(n)(3) lists factors for determining whether it is essential.

Swank v. CareSource Management Group Corp. · filed 2016-08-17(n)(2), (n)(3)

“A job function may be considered essential because: (1) the position exists to perform that function; (2) there are a limited number of employees available among whom the performance of that job function can be distributed; or (3) the function is highly specialized so that the incumbent in the position is hired for his or her expertise or ability to perform the particular function.” ... “Factors to consider when determining whether a job function is essential to the position include: (1) the employer’s judgment; (2) the written job description; (3) the amount of time spent performing the function; (4) the consequences of not requiring performance of the function; (5) the work experience of past incumbents of the position; and (6) the current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs.” ... “The undisputed facts established that traveling to conduct face-to-face visits with members was an essential function of the CMHR position.”

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

Kendall v. Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs · filed 2017-03-14(n)(1)

The essential functions are defined as “the fundamental job duties of the employment position.” Lucas, 257 F.3d at 1258 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1)). This Court evaluates whether a function is “essential” on a case-by-case basis by examining a number of factors, including: (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.

The regulation defines essential functions as the fundamental duties of the position, and the court applied that definition to hold that lifting up to fifty pounds was an essential function of the chef manager job.

Bush v. Compass Group USA · filed 2017-03-23(n)(1)

EEOC regulations define “essential functions” as “the fundamental job duties of the employment position the individual with a disability holds or desires.” ... We hold that no reasonable jury could find that heavy lifting was an inessential part of the chef manager job when Bush himself repeatedly admitted that it was essential.

Section 1630.2(n)(3) identifies nonexclusive factors concerning workplace consequences and employees’ work experience, beyond the employer’s judgment, for determining whether a job function is essential.

Sepulveda-Vargas v. Caribbean Restaurants, LLC · filed 2018-04-30(n)(3)

And the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's ("EEOC") implementing regulations of the Act further tell us that beyond the employer's judgment, things to be considered include (but are not limited to) factors like "[t]he consequences of not requiring the incumbent to perform the function[,]" "[t]he work experience of past incumbents in the job[,]" and "[t]he current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs." 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3).

Section 1630.2(n)(1) defines a job's essential functions as its fundamental duties, rather than its marginal functions.

Pfendler v. Liberty Dialysis-Hawaii, LLC · filed 2018-07-02(n)(1)

“The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulations interpreting the ADA explain that a job’s ‘essential functions’ are its ‘fundamental’ duties, not the ‘marginal functions of the position.’ ” Cripe v. City of San Jose, 261 F.3d 877, 887 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1)).

Section 1630.2(n) defines an essential function as a fundamental job duty rather than a marginal task and identifies employer judgment, job descriptions, and work experience as relevant evidence of essentiality.

Burnett v. Ocean Props., Ltd. · filed 2018-06-11(n)(1), (n)(3)

An essential function is a "fundamental job duty of the position at issue," which "does not include marginal tasks." ... Evidence of whether a particular function is essential includes, but is not limited to: "the employer's judgment, written job descriptions, the work experience of past incumbents of the job, and the current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs."

Section 1630.2(n)(3) identifies factors for determining which job functions are essential, including the employer’s judgment, written job descriptions, time required, consequences of omission, and past incumbents’ work experience.

Matos v. King · filed 2018-08-13(n)(3)

Courts look to a number of factors to determine an employee’s essential duties, including “the employer’s judgment as to which functions are essential, written job descriptions the employer prepared for the position, the amount of time required to perform the function, the consequences to the employer of not requiring the activity, and the work experiences of past incumbents of the job in question and of similar jobs.” Morris, 994 F. Supp. 2d at 47 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)). Matos’s essential duties, primarily her supervisory role over other employees and her need to meet with other officials and outside parties to carry out her tasks, required her to be in the office at least some of the time.

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

Kotaska v. Federal Express · filed 2018-08-21(n)(3)

In order to determine whether a job function is essential, courts “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.” Majors v. Gen. Elec. Co., 714 F.3d 527, 533 (7th Cir. 2013) (quoting Rooney v. Koch Air, LLC, 410 F.3d 376, 382 (7th Cir. 2005)); see also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3).

A job function is essential when the reason the position exists is to perform that function; for a police officer, that made arresting an active resister essential, along with the related abilities to ambulate independently and handle a firearm.

Sams v. City of Chicago · filed 2018-09-28(n)(2)(i)

The EEOC regulations provide that a job function may be essential “because the reason the position exists is to perform that function.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(2)(i). For a police officer, arresting an active resister is essential in precisely that sense, and the ability to ambulate independently and handle a firearm goes hand-in-hand with that function. The Court concludes that the requirements of the 2012 CPD directive were “essential functions” of plaintiff’s job as a police officer, and plaintiff could not perform them without a reasonable accommodation.

Section 1630.2(n)(1) treats essential functions as the fundamental duties of the job, and whether an employee can perform them may be decided from evidence of the actual workplace requirements rather than a doctor’s restrictions or job description alone.

Gunter v. Bemis Co.,Inc. · filed 2018-10-16(n)(1)

Through it all, an employee still must be able to perform the “fundamental job duties.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1). ... Even if we take a doctor’s restrictions at face value, however, they do not dictate the essential functions of a job. The jury heard evidence from several witnesses that Gunter could handle the fundamental duties of a press assistant with these restrictions. ... In the last analysis, Gunter presented sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact over the essential job requirements of a press operator, making the final resolution one for the jury, not for us.

Section 1630.2(n)(1) defines essential functions as the fundamental duties of the position, and the court applied that definition to treat heavy lifting as essential to a maintenance mechanic's job.

Gardea v. JBS USA. LLC · filed 2019-02-08(n)(1)

Essential functions of the position are “the fundamental job duties of the employment position the individual with a disability holds or desires.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1). ... As the district court found, lifting is an essential function of the maintenance mechanic position. ... The record shows that heavy lifting is commonplace in the maintenance mechanic position. Therefore, the lifting of objects heavier than Gardea can lift is an essential function.

Section 1630.2(n)(3) identifies factors—such as the job description, employer’s judgment, time spent, consequences of omission, and workplace practice—for deciding whether a job duty is an essential function.

Papenfuss v. Butitta Brothers Automotive, Inc. · filed 2019-03-13(n)(3)

Courts employ various factors to determine whether a particular duty is an “essential function,” including (a) the employee’s job description, (b) the employer’s opinion, (c) the amount of time spent performing the function, (d) the consequences for not requiring the individual to perform the duty, and (e) the actual practices in the employer’s workplace. Stern v. St. Anthony’s Health Ctr., 788 F.3d 276, 285 (7th Cir. 2015); Gratzl, 601 F.3d at 679; 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3). Whether a function is essential is a question of fact. Brown v. Smith, 827 F.3d 609, 613 (7th Cir. 2016). ... Considering this and the other Stern factors, and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the court concludes there is a triable question of fact as to whether driving and maintenance tasks were essential functions of plaintiff’s job.

The regulation defines essential functions as the fundamental duties of a job, excluding marginal duties, and lists factors for deciding whether a function is essential.

Bilinsky v. American Airlines, Inc. · filed 2019-06-26(n)(1), (n)(3)

The EEOC has defined “essential functions” as “the fundamental job duties of the employment position”; they do not include “marginal functions.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1). In interpretive guidance, the EEOC has noted that, when assessing the essential functions of a job, “the inquiry will then center around whether removing the function would fundamentally alter that position.” Id. § 1630 App. “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.” Rooney v. Koch Air, LLC, 410 F.3d 376, 382 (7th Cir. 2005) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)).

Section 1630.2(n)(3) lists seven non-exhaustive factors courts must consider when determining whether a job function is essential, and disputed evidence concerning those factors may require a jury to decide the issue.

Shaw v. Beacon Health System, Inc. · filed 2019-07-19(n)(3)

Federal regulations include a list of seven non-exhaustive factors that are relevant to determining “whether a particular function is essential.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3). They are: “(i) The employer’s judgment as to which functions are essential; (ii) Written job descriptions prepared before advertising or interviewing applications 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 incumbents in the job; and/or (vii) The current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs.” Id. ... Both parties cite evidence in their favor which bears on the factors contained in 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3). This is a very similar situation in Lenker. But again, when the Seventh Circuit affirmed judgment in the hospital’s favor, it was doing so only after the jury had the opportunity to weigh in. A jury will have the same opportunity in this case.

(n)(3) identifies factors for determining whether a job function is essential, including the employer’s judgment, written job descriptions, time spent, consequences of omission, collective bargaining terms, and work experience.

Harris v. Steel Warehouse · filed 2019-08-19(n)(3)

The determination of whether something is an essential function of a job is guided by the factors listed in. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3); Lenker v. Methodist Hosp., 210 F.3d 792, 796 (7th Cir. 2000). Those factors are: “(i) The employer’s judgment as to which functions are essential; (ii) Written job descriptions prepared before advertising or interviewing applications 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 incumbents in the job; and/or (vii) The current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs.” Id. It is true that an employer’s judgment is a very important factor, but they don’t get the final say-so, and I cannot simply rubberstamp their judgment. Basith, 241 F.3d at 928-29; DePaoli, 140 F.3d at 674.

Section 1630.2 defines essential job functions as fundamental duties rather than marginal ones and directs courts to consider specified evidence, including the employer’s judgment, job descriptions, time spent, prior or current incumbents, and the consequences of not requiring the function.

Bilinsky v. American Airlines, Inc. · filed 2019-08-09(n)(1), (n)(3)

The EEOC has defined “essential functions” as “the fundamental job duties of the employment position”; they do not include “marginal functions.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1). In interpretive guidance, the EEOC has noted that, when assessing the essential functions of a job, “the inquiry will then center around whether removing the function would fundamentally alter that position.” Id. § 1630 App. “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.” Rooney v. Koch Air, LLC, 410 F.3d 376, 382 (7th Cir. 2005) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)). We also consider “[t]he consequences of not requiring the incumbent to perform the function.” Miller, 643 F.3d at 198.

A job function is essential when the reason the position exists is to perform that function.

Berthiaume v. Virginia Department Of Health · filed 2019-11-13(n)(2)

As the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit noted in Jacobs v. N.C. Administrative Office of the Courts, “[n]ot all job requirements or functions are essential. A job function is essential when ‘the reason the position exists is to perform that function.’” 780 F.3d 562, 579 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(2)). ... While Plaintiff has demonstrated a sufficiently plausible claim to advance his case to next the stage, whether filing duties are an essential function of his position must await the development of a more fulsome record. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss will therefore be denied.

Section 1630.2 defines essential functions as the fundamental duties of a job, excluding marginal duties, and directs courts to consider factors such as the time spent on the function, the consequences of not requiring it, and the experience of current and past employees in similar jobs.

Bach v. Community Ties of America, Inc. · filed 2019-11-15(n)(1), (n)(3)

“Essential functions” of a job are the “fundamental job duties of the employment position . . . not includ[ing] the marginal functions of the position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1). ... “Such evidence, however, is not conclusive[.]” Rohr v. Salt River Project Agri. Improvement & Power Dist., 555 F.3d 850, 864 (9th Cir. 2009); see also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3) (itemizing additional factors to consider including the amount of time spent performing the function, consequences of not requiring the employee to perform the function, and work experience of current and past employees in that or similar jobs).

Section 1630.2(n)(3)(i) and (iv) identifies factors relevant to deciding whether a job function is essential, including the employer’s judgment and the consequences of not requiring the employee to perform it.

Wyatt v. Nissan North America, Inc. · filed 2019-12-06(n)(3)(i) and (iv)

The factors to be considered in this analysis include, among other things, the employer’s judgment as to which functions are essential and the consequences of ... not requiring the plaintiff to perform the function. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)(i) and (iv).

The regulation identifies seven categories of evidence—such as the employer’s judgment, written job descriptions, time spent, consequences, agreements, and work experience—that courts consider when deciding whether a job duty is essential.

HIRLSTON v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION · filed 2019-12-18(n)(3)

When determining the essential functions of a job, the Court looks at the following categories of evidence: (i) The employer’s judgment as to which functions are essential; (ii) Written job descriptions prepared before advertising or interviewing applicants for a 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 incumbents in the job; and/or (vii) The current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3); Miller v. Illinois Dept. of Transp., 643 F.3d 190, 197-98 (7th Cir. 2011.)

Section 1630.2(n) treats a job function as essential when removing it would fundamentally alter the position and directs consideration of specified workplace factors.

Applewhite v. FCA US LLC · filed 2019-12-18(n)

“A job function is essential if its removal would ‘fundamentally alter’ the position.” Id. (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n) app. at 356). “Whether the removal of the job function would fundamentally alter the position is determined by looking at such factors as”: ... Id. at 584-85.

Section 1630.2(n)(3) identifies seven nonexclusive types of evidence for determining whether a job function is essential.

Lowes v. Baldwin · filed 2019-12-30(n)(3)

The EEOC’s regulations identify seven specific, but not exclusive, types of evidence of whether a particular function is essential—1) the employer’s judgment, 2) written job descriptions, 3) the amount of time spent on the job performing the function, 4) the consequences of not requiring the function, 5) the terms of a CBA, 6) the work experience of past employees in the job, and 7) the current work experience of those in similar jobs. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3) (2019). Generally speaking, each of these criteria “point toward finding regular and predictable on-site attendance essential” for most jobs, especially the interactive ones.

Section 1630.2(n) provides nonexclusive, fact-intensive factors for deciding whether a job function is essential, with no single factor ordinarily dispositive.

Sivio v. Village Care Max · filed 2020-01-31(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 evidentiary examples provided are not meant to be exhaustive.” Stone, 118 F.3d at 97. ... Thus, there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether permitting Sivio to conduct home visits only on members without pets would have been a reasonable accommodation. Or to put it in other terms, a reasonable jury could conclude that conducting home visits for members with pets was not an essential function of Sivio’s role as a care manager.

Section 1630.2(n)(3)(ii) treats written job descriptions prepared before advertising or interviewing applicants as evidence of whether a job function is essential, but does not require that the description have been provided to the employee.

BECK v. HONDA MANUFACTURING OF INDIANA, LLC · filed 2020-03-06(n)(3)(ii)

Beck cites 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1)(ii) for this proposition, but § 1630.2(n)(1) has no subparts. Presumably Beck intends to rely on § 1630.2(n)(3)(ii), which provides that “[e]vidence of whether a particular function is essential includes, but is not limited to . . . [w]ritten job descriptions prepared before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job.” The regulation does not require that such job descriptions be provided to the employee.

Section 1630.2(n) makes written job descriptions relevant evidence in determining whether a function is essential, but does not make them automatically dispositive.

Melo v. City of Somerville · filed 2020-03-24(n)

Rather, the statute and regulations state only that written descriptions are entitled to consideration. 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n).

Section 1630.2(n)(1) defines essential functions as the fundamental duties of a job and directs courts to consider non-exhaustive factual factors, including written job descriptions, time spent performing the function, and how the job is performed in practice.

Vega v. Department of Education · filed 2020-03-30(n)(1)

The term “essential functions” is not defined in the ADA, but ADA regulations say it means “the fundamental job duties of the employment position the individual with a disability holds or desires.” ... To determine the essential functions of a position, court must conduct a factual inquiry into factors such as written job descriptions, amount of time on the job spent performing the function, how the job is actually performed in practice, etc. ... 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1) (listing non-exhaustive reasons job function may be considered “essential,” i.e., position exists to perform that function, limited number of employees can perform that function, function is so highly specialized incumbent in position was hired for ability to perform that specific function).

Section 1630.2(m) defines a qualified person by the ability to perform essential job functions with or without reasonable accommodation, and subsection (n)(3) identifies evidence relevant to whether a function is essential.

Jones v. New York City Transit Authority · filed 2020-03-31(m), (n)(3)

To be qualified, a person must be able to perform the “essential functions” of her position, with or without reasonable accommodation. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(m). “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 incumbents in the job; and/or (vii) The current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3). ... There is ample evidence in the record that climbing in and out of the trains is an essential function of the train conductor position, and insufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact on this issue.

Section 1630.2(n) defines essential functions as fundamental job duties rather than marginal functions and permits consideration of factors including the employer’s judgment and the work experience of current and past incumbents.

Burghardt-Cobb v. Inch · filed 2020-04-24(n)(1), (n), (n)(vii)

“‘Essential functions’ are ‘fundamental job duties of the employment position . . . not includ[ing] the marginal functions of the position.” ... In considering what is an essential job function of a particular job, a court may also consider “[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.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n); ... Finally, it is important to recognize that determining the essential functions of any particular job is a question of fact which, if the facts are disputed, must be determined by the finder of fact.

When deciding whether a job function is essential, a court may consider the employer’s judgment about which functions are essential, together with the other evidence listed in the regulation.

MCGHEE v. PPG INDUSTRIES, INC. · filed 2020-04-03(n)(3)(i)

The Court may consider the following evidence to determine whether a particular function is essential: (1) “[t]he employer’s judgment as to which functions are essential;” (2) “[w]ritten job descriptions prepared before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job;” (3) “[t]he amount of time spent on the job performing the function;” (4) “[t]he consequences of not requiring the incumbent to perform the function;” (5) “[t]he terms of a collective bargaining agreement;” (6) “[t]he work experience of past incumbents in the job; and/or” (7) “[t]he current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)(i)-(vii); see also 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8) (“[C]onsideration shall be given to the employer’s judgment as to what functions of a job are essential, 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.”). ... Here, PPG determined that lifting five-gallon buckets of paint was an essential function of McGhee’s role as sales associate. ... The undisputed evidence indicates that lifting the five-gallon buckets of paint was an essential function of McGhee’s job.

Section 1630.2(n)(3) identifies factors for determining whether a job function is essential, which informs whether an individual can perform the essential functions of the job and is qualified under the ADA.

Schultz v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, LTD · filed 2020-06-05(n)(3)

ADA regulations provide, for example, a number of considerations including but not limited to: (1) the employer’s judgment32 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 incumbent to perform the function, (5) the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, (6) the work experience of past incumbents in the job; and (7) the current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3).

Section 1630.2(n)(1) treats a job function as essential when it is fundamental rather than marginal, and subsection (n)(2) identifies reasons a function may be essential, including that the position exists to perform it, few employees can perform it, or it requires specialized expertise.

BURKE v. DEPUY SYNTHES COMPANIES · filed 2020-06-30(n)(1), (n)(2)

Whether a job duty is an “essential function” turns on whether it is “fundamental” to the position. “Marginal functions” of the position are insufficient. Turner, 440 F.3d at 612 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1)); ... Additionally, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”) “Interpretive Guidance” defining “essential functions” states that a function may be deemed “essential” because: (i) the reason the position exists is to perform that function; (ii) the limited number of employees available among whom the performance of that job function can be distributed; and/or (iii) the function may be highly specialized so that the incumbent in the position is hired for her expertise or ability to perform the particular function. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(2).

Under § 1630.2(n)(3), an employer’s judgment about essential job functions receives the greatest weight but is not entitled to blind deference; the employer’s policies and practices must also be considered.

Garcia v. City of Amarillo, Texas · filed 2020-07-22(n)(3)

It is true that among the factors listed in 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3), courts should give the greatest weight to an employer’s judgment on essential functions of a job. Credeur, 860 F.3d at 792. However, “courts should not give blind deference to an employer’s judgment, but should instead evaluate the employer’s words alongside its policies and practices.” Id. at 794 (citing Ford Motor Co., 782 F.3d 753, 765-66 (6th Cir. 2015)). Accordingly, this Court can simply not accept that “signing a packet” is an essential function of a firefighter and that Plaintiff rendered himself unqualified for the job by declining to sign it until he could review it with his lawyer.

Section 1630.2(n)(3) identifies non-exhaustive factors for determining whether a job function is essential, including the employer’s judgment, written job descriptions, time spent, consequences of nonperformance, and work experience.

Eyster v. Metropolitan Nashville Airport Authority · filed 2020-08-14(n)(3)

Federal regulations implementing the ADA list the following non-exhaustive factors to consider in determining whether a particular function is “essential:” (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 incumbent to perform the function; (5) the work experience of past incumbents in the job; and (6) the current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3). ... Applying the factors listed in the regulation to the evidence presented by Defendant indicates that producing time-sensitive spreadsheet reports was an essential job function for a Commercial Development Specialist.

Section 1630.2(n)(1) treats essential functions as the core or fundamental duties of a job, rather than marginal tasks.

Freeman v. Learning Care Group · filed 2020-08-20(n)(1)

To determine if Freeman is otherwise qualified for her position, she must show she can perform the essential functions of her job with or without an accommodation. ... Essential functions are the core job duties, not the marginal ones. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2 (n)(1). The analysis is fact specific.

Section 1630.2(n)(1) defines essential functions as fundamental job duties rather than marginal functions, and § 1630.2(n)(3) identifies factors for determining whether a function is essential.

SAFFER v. BECHTEL MARINE PROPULSION CORPORATION · filed 2020-09-08(n)(1), (n)(3)

Federal regulations promulgated under the ADA provide that “[t]he 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)(1). The term “does not include the marginal functions of the position.” Id. Whether a particular job function is essential may be evinced by, among other things, “[t]he employer’s judgment as to which functions are essential”; “[t]he amount of time spent on the job performing the function”; and “[t]he consequences of not requiring the incumbent to perform the function.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3).

A job function may be essential when the position exists to perform it, and an employer need not provide an accommodation that shifts that essential function to another employee.

King v. Lutheran Child and Family Services · filed 2020-09-10(n)(2)(i)

He suggests that LCFS was out of compliance with staff ratios, but to the extent he believes LCFS should have hired additional staff to accommodate him, it appears Mr. King simply wanted another employee to take over his unit supervision duties—a change in the essential functions of his position. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(2)(i) (“[A] function may be essential because the reason the position exists is to perform that function.”). The ADA does not require employers to make such accommodations.

A job function may be essential when the position exists to perform that function, and whether hearing protection was essential to a conductor's job was a fact question here.

Mlsna v. Union Pacific Railroad Compan · filed 2020-09-14(n)(2)(i)

A job function also may be considered essential because “the position exists … to perform that function.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(2)(i). But nobody would argue the reason the position of conductor exists is to wear hearing protection. A fact question exists as to whether hearing protection was part of serving as a conductor for Union Pacific.

Section 1630.2(I) treats walking as a major life activity, and § 1630.2(n)(3)(i) makes the employer’s judgment relevant evidence of an essential job function.

Deneve v. DSLD Homes Gulf Coast, LLC · filed 2020-09-14(I); (n)(3)(i)

The record suggests Plaintiff’s intermittent limited mobility interfered with a major life activity – walking. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(I). ... Courts are encouraged to consider the following evidence when determining whether a particular job function is essential: ... (i) The employer’s judgment as to which functions are essential; ... (vii) The current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs. 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(n)(3)(i) – (vii). Assuming arguendo Plaintiff is disabled, he cannot demonstrate he performed the essential functions of his QC Tech position, his Warranty / Customer Care tech position, or the specifically created “punch-out” position without a reasonable accommodation.

Section 1630.2(n) defines an essential function as a fundamental job duty rather than a marginal one and identifies the circumstances and factors used to determine whether a job function is essential.

BEAL v. MUNCIE SANITARY DISTRICT · filed 2020-10-22(n)(1), (n)(2), and (n)(3)

"An essential function is a fundamental job duty required of a person in the job; a marginal duty is not an essential function." Shell v. Smith, 789 F.3d 715, 717 (7th Cir. 2015) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1)). Generally speaking, functions may be essential because the job exists to perform the function, a limited number of employees can perform the function, or the function is highly specialized. Id. (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(2)). Several factors can be considered to determine whether a job 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; (v) The terms of a collective bargaining agreement; (vi) The work experience of past incumbents in the job; and/or (vii) The current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs. Id. at 717–18 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)). According to the job description written before Beal assumed the role, an employee in the Maintenance position was required to operate heavy machinery, monitor lift stations across the District, and maintain the "ability to physically perform assigned duties, involving driving." (Filing No. 26-2 at 72–73). These were essential job functions of the Maintenance position—absent these safety sensitive tasks, the position would be diluted beyond recognition. As Beal acknowledged at his deposition, he drove a District truck—sometimes even one equipped with a "small crane"—"[a]t least a couple times a week" and consistently operated heavy machinery (Filing No. 26-1 at 5–6). Beal contends that the District "designated no evidence to suggest that Beal's prescribed medications or medical condition impaired his ability to perform the essential functions of his job or posed a threat to anyone," (Filing No. 32 at 9). However, Beal agreed in his deposition that "opiates, even as prescribed, for some people could create a safety risk if they were doing things that might otherwise be dangerous, like operating heavy equipment or driving a vehicle on public thoroughfares". (Filing No. 26-1 at 8.) Because the drugs prescribed to Beal could impair his ability to perform the essential job functions of the Maintenance position, the evidence supports that the District complied with the requirements of the ADA when it requested that he submit to a neutral medical examination.

Section 1630.2(n)(1) defines essential functions as the fundamental duties of the position, and carrying mail weighing more than 15 pounds was an essential function of a mail carrier’s job.

Vargas v. DeJoy · filed 2020-11-23(n)(1)

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)(1). ... Being able to carry bundles of mail weighing more than 15 pounds—Vargas’s limit—is an essential function of a mail carrier’s job.

Section 1630.2(n) treats essential functions as core job duties and permits courts to consider specified evidence, including the employer's judgment and written job descriptions.

Maertens v. JAC Products, Inc. · filed 2021-01-14(n)(1), (n)(3)

“The essential functions are the core job duties, not the marginal ones.” Id. (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2 (n)(1)). This determination is highly fact specific. Mosby-Meachem, 883 F.3d at 605. Courts may consider the amount of time spent on a particular function; the employer’s judgment; “written descriptions prepared before advertising or interviewing” for the position; the consequences of not requiring the employee to perform the particular function; and other factors. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3). The employer’s judgment receives some weight in the analysis, but it is not absolutely determinative, especially when an employee puts forth competing evidence. Hostettler v. College of Wooster, 895 F.3d at 853.

Section 1630.2(n)(1) treats essential functions as fundamental job duties rather than marginal functions and identifies factors relevant to deciding whether a job function is essential.

WEISS v. THE PENNSYLVANIA HOSPITAL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · filed 2021-02-26(n)(1)

“The “essential functions” of a position are the “fundamental job duties,” not “marginal functions.” 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(n)(1). “A job function may be considered essential for a number of reasons, including because[:] (1) ‘the reason the position exists is to perform that function,’ (2) only a limited number of employees are available ‘among whom the performance of that job function can be distributed,’ or (3) the function is ‘highly specialized so that the incumbent in the position is hired for his or her expertise or ability to perform the particular function.’” Supinski, 413 Fed. Appx. at 540 (quoting 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(n)(1)). ... Even with Defendants’ evidence, the Third Circuit has historically advised District Courts against making these highly factual determinations that should be left to a jury. ... So, too, here, the issue should be decided by a jury. Plaintiff has presented evidence to support a reasonable jury finding that working shifts on-call in the Hospital is not an essential function of being an echo tech. Thus, she has made a sufficient showing that she was qualified to perform her job as an echo tech at the time of her termination.”

Section 1630.2 defines essential functions as fundamental job duties and identifies factors courts may consider in determining whether a job function is essential.

Leogue v. Broward County · filed 2021-02-22(n)(1) (n)(3)

“Essential functions are ‘the fundamental job duties of the employment position the [disabled employee] holds or desires.’” Lucas v. W.W. Grainger, Inc., 257 F.3d 1249, 1258 (11th Cir. 2001) (alteration in original) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1)). ... Other considerations the district court may make include “(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.” Davis, 205 F.3d at 1305 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)).

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 performing the function, consequences of not requiring it, collective-bargaining terms, and the work experience of past and current incumbents.

Jones v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth. · filed 2021-03-09(n)(3)

“Evidence of whether a particular function is essential [under the ADA] 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 incumbents in the job; and/or (vii) The current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs.”

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

Gloeckner v. Kraft Heinz Foods Company LLC · filed 2021-03-09(n)(1)

The essential functions of a position are “the fundamental job duties of the employment position the individual with a disability holds or desires.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1).

Section 1630.2(n)(1) defines essential functions as the fundamental duties of the position rather than marginal duties, and the court applies that definition to assess whether an employee can perform the job.

Provenzano v. RLS Logistics · filed 2021-03-18(n)(1)

As the court in Gavurnik, 227 F.Supp. 3d at 417, explained: “Essential functions” refers to the “fundamental job duties of the employment position,” not “the marginal functions of the position.” 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(n)(1). A function is essential if “the reason the position exists is to perform that function.” §1630.2(n)(2)(i). The relevant regulation looks to evidence of the employer’s judgment, written job description, consequences of not performing the function, and current work experience of incumbents to determine if a function is essential. §1630.2(n)(3).

Section 1630.2(n)(1) defines a job’s essential functions as its fundamental duties.

Taylor v. Childrens Village · filed 2021-04-21(n)(1)

The essential functions of a job are “the fundamental job duties of the employment position the individual with a disability holds or desires.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1).

Section 1630.2(n)(3) directs courts to consider relevant evidence, including the employer’s judgment, written job descriptions, and attendance and workplace-conduct policies, when determining whether regular attendance is an essential job function.

Evans v. Cooperative Response Center · filed 2021-05-04(n)(3)

We must consider an employer’s judgment that regular and reliable attendance is an essential function of an employee’s job, looking to relevant evidence such as written job descriptions and policies regarding attendance and workplace conduct. See Lipp, 911 F.3d at 544, quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8) and 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3).

Section 1630.2(n) identifies factors used to determine whether a job duty is an essential function, including the employer’s judgment, written job descriptions, time spent performing the duty, consequences of not requiring it, and the work experience of past incumbents.

LEATHERS v. GLAXOSMITHKLINE · filed 2021-05-07(n)

When applied to the factors set forth in 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n), the undisputed facts weigh heavily towards a finding that exposure to chemicals was an essential function of the BMA position. GSK personnel repeatedly described working with chemicals as a key function of the job. The BMA job description confirms this by identifying the purpose and primary duties of the position as, among other things, chromatography, preparation of buffer solutions, and equipment sterilization. These job duties all require frequent exposure to various chemical compounds. ... Therefore, the Court finds that frequent exposure to, and handling of, a variety of chemicals was an essential function of Plaintiff’s job.

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

Flores v. Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama, LLC · filed 2021-05-12(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)(1). The term “does not include the marginal functions of the position.” Id.

Section 1630.2(n)(2) and (n)(3) identify the circumstances and evidence used to determine whether a job function is essential, including the employer’s judgment, time spent, consequences of omission, and comparable employees’ work experience.

Cook v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · filed 2021-05-25(n)(2), (n)(3)

A job function is essential when the reason the position exists is to perform that function, when there are not enough employees available to perform the function, or when the function is so specialized that someone is hired specifically because of his or her expertise in performing that function. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(2); see also Jacobs, 780 F.3d at 579. ... Other relevant evidence can include “the employer’s judgment as to which functions are essential,” “the amount of time spent on the job performing the function,” “the consequences of not requiring the incumbent to perform the function,” and the work experience of people who hold the same or similar job. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3). ... Lifting packages over 20-25 pounds bears more than a “marginal relationship” to the preload supervisor position. Therefore, lifting more than 20-25 pounds is an essential function of preload supervisors.

Section 1630.2(n)(3) identifies the amount of time spent performing a function, the work experience of employees in the position, and the consequences of not requiring the function as evidence of whether it is essential.

Tolefree v. Swift Transportation Co. Inc. · filed 2021-05-26(n)(3)

Federal regulations interpreting the ADA also list several other types of evidence that might show “whether a particular function is essential,” including “[t]he amount of time spent on the job performing the function,” the work experience of those who have the job, and “the consequences of not requiring [an employee] to perform the function.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3).

Section 1630.2(n)(1) defines the essential functions of a job as its fundamental duties, and the court considers factors including the employer's judgment, the written job description, time spent performing the function, consequences of not requiring it, and the experiences of past and current workers.

MULRYAN v. RICS SOFTWARE, INC. · filed 2021-05-26(n)(1)

The essential functions of a job are "the fundamental job duties of the employment position the individual with a disability holds or desires." 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1).

Section 1630.2(n)(3) identifies factors courts may consider in determining whether a job function is essential, including the employer’s judgment, the consequences of not requiring the function, and the work experience of employees in similar jobs.

Wyatt v. Nissan N. Am., Inc. · filed 2021-05-28(n)(3)

In assessing whether a job function is essential, courts may consider several factors, including the employer’s judgment, the consequences of not requiring the employee to perform the function, and the current work experience of employees in similar jobs. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3); Hostettler v. Coll. of Wooster, 895 F.3d 844, 854–55 (6th Cir. 2018).

Evidence of an essential job function may include the employer’s judgment, a written job description, a supervisor’s declaration, and other employees’ experience in the same position.

Smith v. WM Corporate Services Incorporated · filed 2021-06-09(n)(3)

Such evidence includes but is not limited to the written job description, a declaration from a supervisor, other employee’s work experience in the same position, or the “employer’s judgement as to which functions are essential.” Samper, 675 F.3d at 1238 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)).

Section 1630.2 treats essential functions as fundamental job duties rather than marginal duties, and a function may be essential when only a limited number of employees can perform it; whether disputed duties meet that standard can present a genuine issue of fact.

King v. Darigold, Inc. · filed 2021-08-11(n)(1), (n)(2)(ii)

“‘Essential functions’ are ‘fundamental job duties of the employment position . . . not includ[ing] the marginal functions of the position.’ 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1); see Cripe v. City of San Jose, 261 F.3d 877, 887 (9th Cir. 2001). ... A job function may also be considered essential for any of several reasons, including: (i) ‘the function may be essential because the reason the position exists is to perform that function’; (ii) ‘the function may be essential because of the limited number of employees available among whom the performance of that job can be distributed’; and/or (iii) ‘the function may be highly specialized so that the incumber in the position is hired for his or her expertise or ability to perform the particular function.’ 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(2). ... Given the conflicting evidence submitted by the parties, there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether lifting heavy boxes of butter below waist level in order to provide support during breaks for the Bulk Packer Operator and to assist in the Re-melt room is an essential function of the Butter Churn Operator position.

Section 1630.2(n)(3) identifies the evidence relevant to deciding whether a job function is essential, including the employer’s judgment, the time spent performing the function, and the consequences of not requiring the function.

Berry v. Sage Dining Services, Inc. · filed 2021-07-19(n)(3)(iii)

In answering whether a job duty is essential, Defendant’s view as to what functions are essential is given deference,11 but “it is [only] one of seven factors the court should consider, including ‘[t]he amount of time spent on the job performing the function’ and ‘[t]he consequences of not requiring the [employee] to perform the function.’” Rorrer v. City of Stow, 743F.3d 1025, 1042 (6th Cir. 2014) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)(iii), (iv)).

Section 1630.2(n)(3) identifies 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 terms, and work experience.

O'Neal v. Self · filed 2021-07-27(n)(3)

Governing regulations counsel the consideration of: (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 incumbents in the job; and/or (vii) The current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs.

Section 1630.2(n)(3) directs courts to consider evidence such as written job requirements and the consequences of not requiring a function when deciding whether the function is essential.

Benson v. Wal-Mart Stores East L.P. · filed 2021-09-15(n)(3)

When determining whether a function is "essential," we consider factors such as the written requirements or description of the job and the consequences of not requiring the function. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3); accord Ward, 209 F.3d at 34. ... This claim ignores the text of the Attendance Policy which says that "regular and punctual attendance is a required and essential function of each associate's job." See Jones, 679 F.3d at 14; see also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3).

Section 1630.2(n)(1) treats a function as essential when the reason the position exists is to perform that function.

Romo, Jr. v. Costco Wholesale Corporation · filed 2021-09-20(n)(1)

An employer may demonstrate a function is essential “because the reason the position exists is to perform that function.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1), (n)(2)(i). Evidence that the job was time sensitive or that his irregular attendance negatively impacted production is not necessary to demonstrate attendance is an essential function. The evidence demonstrates the optical assistant duties had to be performed onsite, and therefore, attendance is an essential function of the job.

Section 1630.2(n)(3) identifies factors courts may consider in deciding whether a job function is essential, including the employer’s judgment, the written job description, time spent performing the function, consequences of not requiring it, and relevant work experience.

Eddy v. BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee, Inc. · filed 2021-09-20(n)(3)

“Put another way, essential functions are the core job duties, not the marginal ones.” ... In determining whether a function is essential, courts consider such factors as “(1) the employer's judgment; (2) the written job description; (3) the amount of time spent performing the function; (4) the consequences of not requiring performance of the function; (5) the work experience of past incumbents of the position; and (6) the current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs.” Bush v. Compass Grp. USA, Inc., 683 F. App'x 440, 446 (6th Cir. 2017) (internal citation omitted); see also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3) (vi-vii). ... On balance, these factors support the conclusion that working independently with minimal supervision was an essential function of Eddy’s job. ... There is no genuine issue of fact regarding whether the ability to work independently with minimal supervision was an essential function of Eddy’s job. It clearly was.

Section 1630.2(n)(2) identifies circumstances showing that a job function is essential, including when the position exists to perform it, insufficient other employees are available, or specialized expertise is required.

KHAN v. UNC HEALTH CARE SYSTEM · filed 2021-09-24(n)(2)

A function is essential to the position when “‘the reason the position exists is to perform that function,’ when there aren’t enough employees available to perform the function, or when the function is so specialized that someone is hired specifically because of his or her expertise in performing that function.” Jacobs, 780 F.3d at 579 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(2)). ... Construing the facts in the light most favorable to Khan, attendance was an essential function of Khan’s job, and he was consistently absent due to FMLA, including continuously for 64 days until the day of his termination with no end in sight. Due to these absences, Khan was unable to perform the essential functions of his job. Therefore, Khan has not alleged sufficient facts that he is a qualified individual under the ADA and is unable to satisfy the first element of his disability discrimination claim.

Section 1630.2(n)(1) defines an employment position’s essential functions as its fundamental job duties.

Young v. Loyd · filed 2021-10-14(n)(1)

The “essential functions” of an employment position are defined by regulation as the “fundamental job duties” of the position. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1).

Section 1630.2(n)(3) directs courts to consider specified evidence—including the employer’s judgment, job descriptions, time spent, consequences, and work experience—when deciding whether a duty is an essential job function.

Saroki-Keller v. University of Michigan · filed 2021-10-22(n)(3)

When determining whether a specific duty is an essential function of the job, the Court first looks to factors provided by ADA regulations. These factors include the employer’s judgment as to which functions are essential; written job descriptions; the amount of time spent on the job performing the function; the consequences of not requiring the incumbent to perform the function the work experience of past incumbents in the job; and the current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3) (2021); see also Green, 683 F. App’x at 492. The Court finds that these factors either favor the University, or at best, favor neither party.

Section 1630.2(n)(3) identifies the employer’s judgment, written job descriptions, time spent performing the function, and the consequences of not requiring it as factors for determining whether a job function is essential.

Baker v. Schneider National Carriers Inc · filed 2021-12-21(n)(3)

In determining whether a function is essential, Courts must give greatest weight to the employer’s judgment while also considering written job descriptions, the amount of time spent on the job performing the function, and the consequences of not requiring the employee to perform the function.

Section 1630.2(n) treats essential functions as the fundamental duties of a position and directs courts to consider the listed factors, with no single factor being determinative in the totality-of-the-circumstances inquiry.

Loerch v. City of Union, Missouri · filed 2022-02-15(n)(1), (n)(3)

In general, “essential functions” refer to those “fundamental job duties” of the position. ... The following factors are relevant when determining whether the function at issue is “essential”: ... (1) the employer’s judgment as to which functions are essential; (2) written job descriptions prepared before the employer began advertising or interviewing for the position; (3) the amount of time on the job spent performing the function; (4) the consequences of not requiring the employee to perform the function; and (5) the past or current work experience of employees in similar jobs. ... Each of the above is “but one factor” to consider when determining if a particular function is essential. ... Ultimately, what constitutes an essential function “depends on the totality of the circumstances.”

Section 1630.2(n)(3) identifies the employer’s view, written job descriptions, time spent performing a function, consequences of not requiring it, and incumbents’ work experience as factors for deciding whether a job duty is essential.

AUSTIN v. MAINELY CONSTRUCTION RENTALS LLC · filed 2022-02-23(n)(3)

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) interpretive regulations include the employer’s view as one factor to be considered but also indicate several additional considerations, including: “[w]ritten job descriptions prepared before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job”; “[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 work experience of past incumbents in the job”; and “[t]he current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3); accord Mulloy, 460 F.3d at 147 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)); Ward, 209 F.3d at 34 (same). ... Even taking these factual assertions into account, none of the factors under the EEOC’s framework clearly weighs in the Defendants’ favor. ... Based on this record, a reasonable factfinder could conclude that working at heights without fall protection is not an essential function of the Laborer position. Thus, summary judgment is not appropriate on this issue.

The regulation treats a job function as essential when removing it would fundamentally alter the job; regular attendance may be essential, but medical leave can still be a reasonable accommodation that enables performance of the essential job duties.

Jeanne King v. Steward Trumbull Mem. Hosp. · filed 2022-04-07(n)(1)

A job function is “essential” if removing the function would “fundamentally alter[]” the job. EEOC v. Ford Motor Co., 782 F.3d 753, 762 (6th Cir. 2015) (en banc) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1)). ... It is true that attendance is an essential function of many jobs. Our Court has found that “with few exceptions, ‘an employee who does not come to work cannot perform any of his job functions, essential or otherwise.’” Ford Motor, 782 F.3d at 761 (quoting EEOC v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 253 F.3d 943, 948 (6th Cir. 2001)). Therefore, “[r]egular, in-person attendance is an essential function—and a prerequisite to essential functions—of most jobs, especially the interactive ones.” Id. at 762–63. ... These outcomes make sense given that Ford Motor was not a medical leave case—the plaintiff there requested a permanent modified schedule allowing her to telework up to four days per week. See 782 F.3d at 759. Therefore, the “general rule” espoused in Ford Motor—that “regularly attending work on-site is essential to most jobs,” id. at 761—cannot automatically apply where medical leave would enable the employee to return to work and perform the essential job duties. Indeed, “[a]pproved medical leave may be a reasonable accommodation and an inability to work while on such leave does not mean that an individual is automatically unqualified.” Terre v. Hopson, 708 F. App’x 221, 228–29 (6th Cir. 2017) (citing Cehrs, 155 F.3d at 782).

(n)(2) identifies circumstances indicating that a job function is essential, including when the position exists to perform it, insufficient employees are available, or specialized expertise is required.

Cook v. UPS · filed 2022-04-12(n)(2)

“A job function is essential when ‘the reason the position exists is to perform that function,’ when there aren’t enough employees available to perform the function, or when the function is so specialized that someone is hired specifically because of his or her expertise in performing that function.” Jacobs v. N.C. Admin. Off. of the Cts., 780 F.3d 562, 579 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(2)).

The regulation treats essential job functions as fundamental, not marginal, and directs courts to consider job descriptions, time spent, consequences, and work experience in identifying them.

Thomas v. Amazon.com, Inc · filed 2022-04-12(n)(1), (n)(3)

By definition, “regularly” “required” responsibilities or “job duties” are “fundamental” to an occupation and not 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)). ... A court determines which functions are essential or fundamental for a job by looking at an employer’s written job description, the amount of time an employer spends 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. Cf. Sharp v. Abate, 887 F. Supp. 695, 699 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (looking at how to define essential job functions for purposes of the ADA (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3))).

Section 1630.2(n)(3) identifies evidence relevant to determining whether a job function is essential, including time spent, the employer’s judgment, preexisting written job descriptions, and the consequences of not requiring the function.

Wells v. Nisbet Inc. · filed 2022-04-28(n)(3)

Determining what functions of a job are essential is a highly fact specific analysis; courts consider as evidence “the amount of time spent on a particular function; the employer’s judgment; ‘written job descriptions prepared before advertising or interviewing’ for the position; and the consequences of not requiring the employee to perform the particular function.” Id. (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)).

Section 1630.2(n) defines essential functions as a position's fundamental duties, excludes marginal functions, and makes evidence such as the employer's judgment, written job descriptions, and time spent performing the function relevant to deciding whether a function is essential.

Gutierrez v. DSG New Mexico, LLC · filed 2022-05-12(n), (n)(3)

The written job description lists repairing upholstery as “necessary” and a “requirement,” suggesting it is essential under 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3). Though that suggests it was “job-related,” Defendant has not brought forth evidence that it was also “uniformly enforced and consistent with business necessity.” ... Also, Plaintiff testified that he did not do upholstery work for a “year or two” prior to February 2019, suggesting that the “time spent performing the function” was not great. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3). Recognizing that an “employer may not turn every condition of employment…into an essential job function, merely by including it in a job description,” Hawkins, 778 F.3d at 877, and the other evidence before it, the Court finds that there is a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether repairing upholstery was one of Plaintiff’s essential functions.

Section 1630.2(n) directs courts to consider the employer’s judgment and specified job-related factors when determining whether a function is essential.

NEAL v. INDIANAPOLIS FIRE DEPARTMENT · filed 2022-06-10(n)(3)

The ADA provides that “consideration shall be given to the employer's judgment as to what functions of a job are essential.” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n). “[T]o determine whether a particular duty is an essential function,” a court is to consider factors like “the employee's job description, the employer's opinion, the amount of time spent performing the function, the consequences for not requiring the individual to perform the duty, and past and current work experiences.” Stern v. St. Anthony's Health Ctr., 788 F.3d 276, 285 (7th Cir. 2015) (quoting Gratzl v. Office of the Chief Judges of the 12th, 18th, 19th & 22nd Jud. Cirs., 601 F.3d 674, 679 (7th Cir. 2010)); see 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3). ... Defendants argue regular attendance was an essential function of Neal's job as a firefighter. The designated evidence supports that in the IFD's judgment, regular attendance is an essential function of Neal's job as a firefighter. ... Moreover, common sense provides that a firefighter must be at work to be able to respond to fires and other emergencies.

Section 1630.2(n)(2) identifies a job function as essential when the position exists to perform it, too few employees are available to perform it, or it requires specialized expertise.

Cooper v. First Citizens Bank & Trust Company · filed 2022-06-14(n)(2)

“A job function is essential when ‘the reason the position exists is to perform that function,’ when there aren’t enough employees available to perform the function, or when the. function is so specialized that someone is hired specifically because of his or her expertise in performing that function.” ... Staying awake, alert, and attentive are essential functions of the computer operations technician position.

Section 1630.2(n)(3) lists non-exhaustive factors for determining whether a job function is essential, and no single factor is dispositive.

Tartaro-McGowan v. Inova Home Health, LLC · filed 2022-06-21(n)(3)

The ADA’s implementing regulations cover a non-exhaustive list of factors that this Court considers in deciding whether a job function is truly essential. These factors are: (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 incumbents in the job; and/or (vii) The current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)(i)-(vii) (emphasis added); see also Serrano v. Cty. of Arlington, 986 F. Supp. 992, 1000-01 (E.D. Va. 1997) (considering these factors in its essential functions analysis). Under the regulations, no one factor is dispositive in determining whether a function is essential.

Section 1630.2(n)(3) identifies factors courts may consider in determining whether a job function is essential, including time spent on the function, the employer’s judgment, preexisting written job descriptions, and the consequences of not requiring the function.

Trego v. Bullitt County Fiscal Court · filed 2022-06-30(n)(3)

To determine what functions of a job are “essential,” courts can look to “the amount of time spent on a particular function; the employer’s judgment; ‘written job descriptions prepared before advertising or interviewing’ for the position; and the consequences of not requiring the employee to perform the particular function.” Hostettler v. Coll. of Wooster, 895 F.3d 844, 854-55 (6th Cir. 2018) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)).

Section 1630.2(n)(3) identifies factors for the case-by-case determination whether a job duty is an essential function, which the court applied in assessing whether remote work could accommodate the plaintiff.

JOHNSON, PH.D. v. CIRRUS EDUCATION GROUP, INC. · filed 2022-09-01(n)(3)

Whether a task is an essential function of an employee’s job is determined according to “a factual inquiry [that is] to be conducted on a case-by-case basis” according to a variety of factors. ... And the ADA regulations provide a significant number of factors to consider when going through the factual analysis of a given duty. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3).3 The Court cannot conclude from the brief deposition testimony cited by Cirrus that Johnson could not perform the essential functions of her job with a remote work accommodation, particularly given that Cirrus liberally allowed her to work remotely.

Section 1630.2(n)(3) makes the employer’s judgment about essential functions relevant but not dispositive, requiring consideration of the listed workplace factors to determine whether a function is essential without improperly second-guessing legitimate business judgments.

BELL v. O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES LLC · filed 2022-09-02(n)(3)

Yet the First Circuit has also cautioned that an employer’s views are “only one factor in the analysis” and that other “fact-intensive considerations” matter, including “written job descriptions, consequences of not requiring the function, work experience of past incumbents, and work experience of current incumbents.” Ward, 209 F.3d at 34 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3) (1999)). Those additional factors are taken from an EEOC regulation, which also lists “[t]he amount of time spent on the job performing the function.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)(iii) (2022). These further considerations “are not meant ‘to enable courts to second-guess legitimate business judgments, but, rather, to ensure that an employer’s asserted requirements are solidly anchored in the realities of the workplace, not constructed out of whole cloth.’” Sepúlveda-Vargas v. Caribbean Rests., LLC, 888 F.3d 549, 553 (1st Cir. 2018) (quoting Gillen v. Fallon Ambulance Serv., Inc., 283 F.3d 11, 25 (1st Cir. 2002)).

A job description prepared before advertising or interviewing applicants is evidence that a function is essential, but listing a requirement in the description alone does not automatically make it essential.

Bletz v. Wegman Food Markets · filed 2022-09-07(n)(2)(ii)

But listing a requirement in a position description does not automatically make it essential under 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n). Now, that a position description sets out requirements—particularly when coupled with proof that it was “prepared before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job”55—is certainly evidence of its essentialness; still that alone is not necessarily enough.

Section 1630.2(n)(2) identifies circumstances indicating that a job function is essential, including when the position exists to perform it, too few employees are available to perform it, or specialized expertise is required.

CHISHOLM v. MOUNTAIRE FARMS OF NORTH CAROLINA CORP. · filed 2022-09-21(n)(2)

A function is essential to the position when “‘the reason the position exists is to perform that function,’ when there aren’t enough employees available to perform the function, or when the function is so specialized that someone is hired specifically because of his or her expertise in performing that function.” Jacobs, 780 F.3d at 579 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(2)). In his Complaint, Chisholm does not articulate the essential functions of his job. Nor does he allege any facts demonstrating that he could perform the essential functions of his position with or without reasonable accommodation. Thus, Chisholm has not plausibly alleged that he is a “qualified individual.”

Section 1630.2(n) identifies essential job functions and the factors and evidence used to determine whether a job duty is essential.

Kunkel v. Strawberry Park Resort Campground, Inc. · filed 2022-11-02(n)(2)(i), (n)(3)

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)(1). Factors of a position’s “essential functions” may include, in relevant part: (i) “the reason the position exists is to perform that function;” and (ii) “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)(i),(ii). Evidence establishing whether a function is essential includes the employer’s judgment, written job descriptions, the amount of time spent performing the task, and the work experience of past and present incumbents. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3). Although considerable deference is given to the employer’s determination of the essential functions, the question is ultimately a “fact-specific inquiry” that balances the employer’s determination and the “how the job is actually performed in practice.” McMillan v. City of New York, 711 F.3d 120, 126 (2d Cir. 2013).

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

Mobley v. St. Luke's Health System, Inc. · filed 2022-11-16(n)(1)

Therefore, we turn to whether Mobley could perform the position’s essential functions, “the fundamental job duties of [his] . . . position,” with or without a reasonable accommodation. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1). An employee must show that a desired accommodation is “reasonable on its face.” U.S. Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391, 401 (2002). The district court concluded that Mobley failed to demonstrate that he could perform his essential job functions with or without a reasonable accommodation. However, drawing all reasonable inferences in Mobley’s favor, we conclude that a genuine dispute of material fact exists as to whether he was able to perform the essential functions of his job through his proposed accommodation of teleworking while he experienced a flare-up of his condition.

Section 1630.2(n)(3) identifies seven nonexclusive factors for deciding whether a job function is essential, including the consequences of not requiring the employee to perform it.

Leibas v. Dart · filed 2022-12-19(n)(3), (n)(3)(iv)

Regulations implementing the ADA identify seven non-exclusive factors to consider when determining whether a job duty amounts to an essential function: ... (vii) The current work experiences of incumbents in similar jobs. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3). ... These factors balance the employer’s judgment—which the court affords some deference—with experiences on the ground, which may counter the employer’s judgment. ... Courts also consider “the impact of not requiring the employee to perform the function.” Vargas v. DeJoy, 980 F.3d 1184, 1188 (7th Cir. 2020) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)(iv)). Again, this factor favors Tague.

(n)(3) directs courts assessing whether a job function is essential to consider the consequences of not requiring it and the experience of past and current employees in comparable positions.

LEWIS v. T-MOBILE USA INC · filed 2023-01-19(n)(3)

Other factors also inform a court’s determination of whether a job function is essential, which factors include the consequences of not requiring the employee perform the function, the experience of past employees in the position, and the current work experience of employees in similar positions. Sepúlveda-Vargas, 888 F.3d at 553 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)).

Section 1630.2(n)(3) identifies factors for determining whether a job function is essential, including the employer’s judgment, job description, time spent, consequences of omission, and work experience in the role.

Woodling v. GeoBuild, LLC · filed 2023-01-20(n)(3)

We consider various factors to determine whether a function is essential, such as an employer’s judgment, the written job description, the amount of time spent performing a function, the consequences of not requiring someone to perform a function, and the work experience of past and current individuals in that role. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3) (2012).

Section 1630.2(n)(3) directs courts to consider specified factors, including the employer’s judgment, written job descriptions, time spent, consequences, and comparable employees, when deciding whether a job function is essential.

Lewis v. Georgia Power Company · filed 2023-02-08(n)(3)

“Whether a function is essential is evaluated on a case-by-case basis by examining a number of factors.” ... “Here, having a CDL was an essential function of Lewis’s lineman job. Like the overtime requirement in Davis, Georgia Power’s company policy required its linemen to have a valid CDL.”

Section 1630.2(n)(3) directs courts to consider the totality of the circumstances, including the employer’s judgment, written job descriptions, and the time spent performing a function, when deciding whether that function is essential to a job.

Muller v. NAES Corporation · filed 2023-02-22(n)(3)

In determining whether a particular function is essential, courts consider the totality of the circumstances, including the employer’s judgment as to which functions are essential, written job descriptions, and the amount of time spent on the job performing the function. See Atencio v. U.S. Postal Ser., 198 F. Supp. 3d 340, 356 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)). ... Based on the job description, Plaintiff’s own testimony, and Defendant’s judgment (which is entitled to significant deference), the Court finds that the essential functions of the O&M Tech position included, at a minimum, climbing ladders, lifting heavy objects, responding to emergencies, and readily manipulating equipment.

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

Brownfield v. McDonough · filed 2023-02-28(n)(1)

Essential functions are “the fundamental job duties of the employment position the individual with a disability holds or desires,” but it “does not include the marginal functions of the position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1).

Section 1630.2(n)(2) identifies circumstances showing that a job function is essential, including when the position exists to perform it, few available employees can perform it, or it requires specialized expertise.

Root v. Decorative Paint Incorporated · filed 2023-03-31(n)(2)

A job function may be essential because “the position exists . . . to perform that function”, “because of the limited number of employees available” who can perform the function, or because “[t]he function may be highly specialized” and the person hired was hired for their expertise in that specialized function. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(2). ... All evidence surrounding the specific requirements of Plaintiff’s job reflects exposure to paint fumes in the plant in general as an essential function of the role. ... That is, there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding whether exposure to paint fumes is an essential function of Plaintiff’s job.

Section 1630.2(n)(3) treats a job function as essential when it is highly specialized and the incumbent is hired for the expertise or ability to perform it.

Squiers v. Washtenaw County · filed 2023-05-17(n)(3)

The County has discretion to establish essential job functions. 42 U.S.C. §12111(8); 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(n)(3). A job function may be considered essential if: ... (3) the function is highly specialized so that the incumbent in the position is hired for her expertise or ability to perform the particular function. ... Because lifting is an “essential function” of Plaintiff’s job, she is not “an otherwise qualified individual” and the County was not required to accommodate her under the ADA.

The regulation defines essential job functions as fundamental duties, excluding marginal duties, and identifies evidence relevant to deciding which duties are essential.

Goosen v. Minnesota Dept. of Transportation · filed 2023-05-18(n)(1), (n)(3)

Essential job functions are “the fundamental job duties of the employment position the individual with a disability holds or desires” but “does not include the marginal functions of the position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1); see Canny v. Dr. Pepper/Seven-Up Bottling Grp., Inc., 439 F.3d 894, 900 (8th Cir. 2006). Evidence relevant to determining whether a job function is essential includes, among potentially other things: (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 incumbents in the job; and/or (vii) The current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3); see Dropinski v. Douglas Cnty., 298 F.3d 704, 707 (8th Cir. 2002).

The essential-function factors in § 1630.2(n)(3) need not be reached when the threshold question is whether the employee is able and available to work.

Ahles v. Mnuchin · filed 2023-05-25(n)(3)

Rather, the issue is her availability to work. The factors under 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3) for essential functions to mandate reasonable accommodations are not addressed where the threshold issue is whether the employee is able and available to work (Docket No. 28, Def. Reply Memo. at 4-5). Due to her ailments, Ahles complained of pain, bloating, and frequently required to use the bathroom, precluding her from working, sitting, or going into work (Docket No. 18, Def. Statement ¶¶ 38-42).

Section 1630.2(n)(3) identifies seven non-exclusive categories of evidence relevant to determining whether a job function is essential.

Valsamis v. John Crane, Inc. · filed 2023-06-08(n)(3)

The ADA’s implementing regulations “identify seven non-exclusive categories of evidence” bearing on that inquiry. ... Those factors include: ... (vii) The current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs. ... 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3).

Section 1630.2(n) treats essential functions as the fundamental duties actually required of the position and directs consideration of the employer’s judgment and other listed factors.

Beasley v. O'Reilly Auto Parts · filed 2023-05-24(n)(2)(1), (n)(3)

Essential functions “are the fundamental job duties of a position that an individual with a disability is actually required to perform.” Earl v. Mervyns, Inc., 207 F.3d 1361, 1365 (11th Cir. 2000) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(2)(1)). When determining what’s essential, “consideration shall be given to the employer’s judgment as to what functions of a job are essential.” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8). ... Other relevant factors are: ... current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs. Davis v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 205 F.3d 1301, 1305 (11th Cir. 2000) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)). First, the evidence indicates that attending the replenishment team’s nightly pre-shift safety meetings and understanding what was said during them were essential components of Beasley’s employment. ... Beasley’s ability to participate meaningfully in the disciplinary meetings about his attendance was also essential. ... A reasonable jury could find that even though disciplinary meetings were not part of Beasley’s day-to-day functions as an inbound materials handler, they were an essential part of the job.

Section 1630.2(n)(3) directs courts to consider seven non-exhaustive factors when determining whether a job function is essential.

Cuellar v. GEO Group · filed 2023-07-13(n)(3)

Further, the regulations promulgated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) list seven non- exhaustive factors to guide the essential-function inquiry: (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 incumbents in the job; and/or (vii) The current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3). ... The ability to work a 16-hour shift is an essential function.

Subsection (n)(1) treats a job duty as essential only when it is fundamental to the position, excluding marginal functions, while subsection (n)(3) identifies non-exhaustive evidence for determining essential functions.

Oross v. KUTZTOWN UNIVERSITY · filed 2023-07-25(n)(1), (n)(3)

Whether a job duty is an "essential function" turns on whether it is "fundamental" to the employment position. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1); Turner, 440 F.3d at 612 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1)). The term "essential function" does not include the "marginal" functions of the position. Id. ... The regulations further set forth a non-exhaustive list of seven examples of evidence that are designed to assist a court in identifying the `essential functions' of a job. ... Skerski, 257 F.3d at 279 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)). ... Although the determination of whether a job duty is an “essential function” normally is a question for the jury, the Court finds that in this case there are no factual issues for a jury to resolve and the Court can make the determination as a matter of law. ... Defendants do not cite to any provision in the Union Agreement or in any University job or course description which states that teaching in-person and conducting office hours in-person are essential functions of a faculty member’s job in general and of Plaintiff’s position in particular.

Section 1630.2(n)(3) directs courts to consider written job descriptions, the consequences of not requiring a function, and the work experience of employees in similar jobs, among other factors, when determining whether a job function is essential.

Kinney v. St. Mary's Health, Inc. · filed 2023-08-07(n)(3)

To determine whether a particular job function is essential, courts consider written job descriptions, the consequences of not requiring that the function be performed, and the work experience of employees in similar jobs, among other factors. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3) (listing factors); see also 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8); Tate v. Dart, 51 F.4th 789, 794 (7th Cir. 2022).

Section 1630.2(n)(2)(iii) requires considering factors such as the employer’s judgment, preexisting job descriptions, time spent performing the function, consequences of not performing it, and the work experience of current and former employees when determining whether a job function is essential.

Sutter v. Shriners Hospitals for Children · filed 2023-08-15(n)(2)(iii)

Evidence to consider in determining whether a function is essential includes: [T]he employer’s judgment as to what functions of a job are essential; job descriptions prepared before advertising or interviewing applicants; the amount of time spent on the job performing the function; the consequences of not requiring the applicant or employee to perform the function; and the work experience of current and former employees.

Section 1630.2(n)(1) identifies essential functions as the fundamental duties of a position, excluding marginal duties.

Davis v. Department of Agriculture · filed 2023-09-01(n)(1)

Stated more simply, the question is whether the appellant’s medical condition prevented her from being able to safely and efficiently perform the core duties of her position. Clemens, 120 M.S.P.R. 616, ¶ 5; Fox, 120 M.S.P.R. 529, ¶ 24. In determining whether the agency has met this burden, we will consider whether a reasonable accommodation exists, short of reassignment, that would enable the appellant to safely and efficiently perform her core duties. See Fox, 120 M.S.P.R. 529, ¶ 26 (noting that the core duties of a position are synonymous with its essential functions, i.e., the fundamental job duties of the position, not including marginal functions); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1).

Section 1630.2(n)(3) identifies evidence relevant to 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 terms, and work experience.

Sullivan v. National Express LLC · filed 2023-09-26(n)(3)

Evidence of whether a particular duty is an essential function under the ADA or NYSHRL may include: (i) The employer’s judgment as to which functions are essential; (ii) [w]ritten job descriptions prepared before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job; (iii) [t]he amount of time spent on the job performing the function; (iv) [t]he consequences of not requiring the incumbent to perform the function; (v) [t]he terms of a collective bargaining agreement; (vi) [t]he work experience of past incumbents in the job; and/or (vii) [t]he current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs. Lavender v. Verizon N.Y. Inc., No. 17-CV-6687, 2023 WL 1863245, at *16 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2023) (quoting Jones v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 838 F. App’x 642, 645 (2d Cir. 2021) (summary order) and citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)).

Section 1630.2(n)(2)(i) treats an employer’s written job description as evidence relevant to, but not necessarily decisive of, whether a function is essential.

Turner v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. · filed 2023-09-26(n)(2)(i)

She asserts that a written job description should be treated as the definitive factor in deciding the essential functions of the cashier position; however, in the law quoted by Plaintiff, this element is one factor to be considered by courts in determining the essential functions. ECF No. 41 at 20 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(2)(i)–(iii)). The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge thoroughly and properly considered Plaintiff’s arguments with respect to her failure to accommodate claim and agrees with her conclusions. There is evidence in the record that stocking was an essential function of the cashier position. Plaintiff has not presented evidence to the contrary.

Section 1630.2(n) defines essential job functions as the position’s fundamental duties and directs courts to consider specified evidence, including the employer’s judgment, written job descriptions, time spent performing the function, consequences of not requiring it, collective-bargaining terms, and relevant work experience.

Crosby, Jr. v. Stew Leonard's Yonkers LLC · filed 2023-09-28(n)(1), (n)(3)

While the ADA does not define the term “essential functions,” the EEOC has promulgated regulations that indicate the term “encompasses ‘the fundamental job duties of the employment position.’” McBride v. BIC Consumer Products Mfg. Co., 583 F.3d 92, 98 (2d Cir. 2009) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1)). ... Evidence of whether a particular duty is an essential function under the ADA or NYSHRL may include: (i) The employer’s judgment as to which functions are essential; (ii) [w]ritten job descriptions prepared before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job; (iii) [t]he amount of time spent on the job performing the function; (iv) [t]he consequences of not requiring the incumbent to perform the function; (v) [t]he terms of a collective bargaining agreement; (vi) [t]he work experience of past incumbents in the job; and/or (vii) [t]he current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs. Lavender v. Verizon N.Y. Inc., No. 17-CV-6687, 2023 WL 1863245, at *16 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 9, 2023) (quoting Jones v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 838 F. App’x 642, 645 (2d Cir. 2021) (summary order) and citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)). “The inquiry into whether a particular function is essential for any given position is a fact intensive one.” Id.

Under § 1630.2, essential functions are the fundamental duties of a position, and whether a function is essential is determined using the regulation’s listed categories of evidence, including the employer’s judgment, written job descriptions, time spent, consequences of omission, and work experience.

Patel v. Brennan · filed 2023-10-20(n)(1), (n)(3)

Looking to the seven categories of evidence identified by 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3), the evidence in the record fully supports the assertion that the ability to walk and stand is an essential function of the position. ... Because the record supports Defendant’s judgment that walking and standing are essential, and because Patel has not come forward with evidence calling that judgment into question, the Court holds that the ability to walk and stand is, in fact, an essential function of the supervisor position.

A job function is essential when it is a fundamental duty of the position, including a duty tied to why the position exists, and the determination considers relevant evidence such as time spent performing it and the employer’s judgment.

Cummings v. DeJoy · filed 2023-11-03(n)(2), (n)(3)(iii)

The essential functions of a job are “the fundamental job duties of the employment position,” but not “the marginal functions of the position.” Id. at 989 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1)). Evidence of whether a given function is essential or fundamental rather than marginal includes “the employer's judgment as to what functions . . . are essential,” and any “written description” prepared “before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job,” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8), as well as the “(iii) [t]he amount of time spent on the job performing the function; (iv) [t]he consequences of not requiring the incumbent to perform the function; (v) [t]he terms of a collective bargaining agreement; (vi) [t]he work experience of past incumbents in the job; and/or (vii) [t]he current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs,” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)(iii)–(vii). ... Finally, USPS uses the Code of Federal Regulations to help define the essential duties of a letter carrier—the reason the position exists is to deliver the mail. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(2). ... The Court adopts as essential functions those that are required to accomplish the primary objective of delivering the mail and listed in the job description for letter carriers: delivering and collecting mail by foot or by vehicle; carrying mail weighing up to 35 pounds; and loading and unloading containers of mail weighing up to 70 pounds. (Doc. 34-1 at 75).

Section 1630.2(n)(3) identifies the evidence relevant to 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 terms, and work experience.

Rosen-Kellogg v. Mayorkas · filed 2023-11-15(n)(3)

Regarding what constitutes an essential function, the Code of Federal Regulations provides that [e]vidence of whether a particular function is essential includes, but is not limited to: (i) [t]he employer’s judgment as to which functions are essential; (ii) [w]ritten job descriptions prepared before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job; (iii) [t]he amount of time spent on the job performing the function; (iv) [t]he consequences of not requiring the incumbent to perform the function; (v) [t]he terms of a collective bargaining agreement; (vi) [t]he work experience of past incumbents in the job; and/or (vii) [t]he current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3). Here, after taking into account the relevant considerations as defined in the Code of Federal Regulations, see id., the Court concludes that the plaintiff has failed to adequately allege that she needed a cell phone to perform the essential functions of her position.

Section 1630.2(n)(3) directs courts to consider factors such as time spent, employer judgment, written job descriptions, and consequences when determining a job's essential functions.

SeMa'j Griffin v. Sec'y of Defense · filed 2023-12-05(n)(3)

Courts evaluate the essential functions of a job through a “fact-intensive analysis” considering such factors as “the amount of time spent on a particular function; the employer’s judgment; written job descriptions prepared before advertising or interviewing for the position; and the consequences of not requiring the employee to perform the particular function.” Hostettler v. Coll. of Wooster, 895 F.3d 844, 854–55 (6th Cir. 2018) (internal quotations marks and citation omitted) (applying the factors set forth in 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3) to an ADA claim); see Keith v. Cnty. of Oakland, 703 F.3d 918, 923 (6th Cir. 2013) (“Claims brought under the Rehabilitation Act are reviewed under the same standards that govern ADA claims.”).

Section 1630.2 treats essential functions as the fundamental duties of a job, and the court applied that standard to conclude that the plaintiff had not shown her field-work duties were merely marginal or could be performed remotely.

Malloy v. Mayor and Town Council of Town of Edmonston, Maryland · filed 2023-12-27(n)(1) (n)(3)

Here, Plaintiff has failed to show that the essential functions of her job can be performed remotely. Defendant has provided evidence in the form of an affidavit from Mr. Sullivan, whose judgment as Plaintiff’s supervisor is that “[t]hough some of [Plaintiff’s] work . . . is purely administrative in nature and could be performed remotely, the most critical aspects of [Plaintiff’s] position require [her] to be out in the field observing, investigating, and taking appropriate action.” (ECF No. 12-2 ¶ 6). In response, Plaintiff merely argues-without evidentiary support-that “[she] could perform all of the essential functions of her job that did not require any in person contact, which . . . is a majority of the job duties [listed in her job description].” (ECF No. 13, at 5). Apart from the fact that a job’s essential functions are not necessarily determined by the majority of the job responsibilities, Plaintiff’s contention alone, devoid of any supporting evidence, is insufficient to establish an essential element of her claim-namely, that field work, as opposed to administrative work, is only a marginal part of her job duties.

Section 1630.2 defines essential functions as the fundamental duties of a position, excludes marginal functions, and identifies evidence such as the employer’s judgment, written descriptions, time spent, consequences of omission, and incumbents’ work experience as relevant to deciding whether a function is essential.

Holmes v. Department of Transportation · filed 2024-01-22(n)(1), (n)(3)

Moreover, we agree with the administrative judge’s conclusion and above characterization that the essential functions, or core duties, of the 802 ET position on the record before us include being able to perform a “critical mass” of the tasks identified in the April 6, 2020 list. See Clemens, 120 M.S.P.R. 616, ¶ 6.

A job function may be essential when it is the reason the position exists; here, carrying a gun belt and firearm were essential functions of the CBP Officer position.

Arellano v. Department of Homeland Security · filed 2024-01-24(n)(2)(i)

The Board has indicated that the core duties of a position are synonymous with the essential functions of a position under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as amended by the ADA Amendments Act, i.e., the fundamental job duties of the position, not including marginal functions. Id., ¶ 21. One of the bases for finding that a function is essential is that it is the “reason the positions exists.” Id.; 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(2)(i). In the initial decision, the administrative judge found that wearing a gun belt and firearm were essential functions of the appellant’s position as a CBP Officer. ID at 7. She further found that the medical evidence and hearing testimony established that the appellant’s medical condition precluded her from performing those essential functions. Id. Thus, she concluded that the agency proved that there was a nexus between the appellant’s medical condition and her inability to perform her job duties and sustained the charge. ID at 7-8. On review, the appellant does not challenge, and we discern no basis to disturb, the administrative judge’s finding that wearing a gun belt and firearm are essential functions of the CBP Officer position. PFR File, Tabs 1, 5.

Section 1630.2(n)(1) defines essential functions as the fundamental job duties an individual with a disability is actually required to perform.

FIELDS v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF GEORGIA MILITARY COLLEGE AND GEORGIA MILITARY PREP SCHOOL · filed 2024-01-31(n)(1)

“‘Essential functions’ are the fundamental job duties of a position that an individual with a disability is actually required to perform.” ... “Apart from teaching on the Augusta campus, there is a dispute as to whether teaching in-person was essential to Fields’ employment as a teacher.”

Section 1630.2(n)(2) identifies circumstances in which a job function may be considered essential, including when the position exists to perform it, few employees are available to perform it, or it is highly specialized.

Cooper v. Dolgencorp, LLC · filed 2024-02-15(n)(2)

We answer the first question in the affirmative—excellent customer service is an essential function of Cooper’s specific delivery merchandiser position. As a reminder, not all job functions are essential. Such functions “may be considered essential because (1) the position exists to perform the function, (2) a limited number of employees are available that can perform it, or (3) it is highly specialized.” Rorrer v. City of Stow, 743 F.3d 1025, 1039 (6th Cir. 2014) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(2)).

Section 1630.2 defines essential job functions as fundamental duties and identifies evidence relevant to deciding whether a function is essential.

Thomas v. New York State Office For People With Developmental Disabilities · filed 2024-02-15(n)(1), (n)

“Essential functions” are “the ‘fundamental’ duties to be performed in the position in question,” not those that are “merely ‘marginal.’” Stone v. City of Mt. Vernon, 118 F.3d 92, 97 (2d Cir. 1997) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1)). Evidence of whether a particular function is essential includes, among other things, the employer’s judgment as to which functions are essential, written job descriptions prepared before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job, the amount of time spent on the job performing the function, the consequences of not requiring an employee to perform the function. Id. (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)).

Section 1630.2(n)(3) identifies factors for determining whether a job function is essential, including the employer’s judgment, job descriptions, time spent performing the function, and the consequences of not requiring it.

Pohlen v. Mayorkas · filed 2024-02-22(n)(3)

The question here is whether Pohlen could avoid investigating sex crimes and still perform the essential functions of her job. The regulations provide several factors to consider when determining whether a 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; (v) The terms of a collective bargaining agreement; (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).

Section 1630.2(n)(2) identifies factors indicating that a job function may be essential, including that the position exists to perform it, few employees are available to perform it, or it requires specialized expertise.

KELLAR v. THE YUNION, INC. · filed 2024-02-23(n)(2)

A job function may be considered essential because (1) the position exists to perform the function, (2) a limited number of employees are available that can perform it, or (3) it is highly specialized. Rorrer v. City of Stow, 743 F.3d 1025, 1038 (6th Cir. 2014) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(2)). ... Here, however, Kellar has not put forth any evidence suggesting that the onsite case management duties are not an essential function and thus has not created a genuine issue of material fact.

Section 1630.2(n)(1) defines essential functions as the fundamental duties of the employment position; an employee who cannot perform an essential function may be accommodated through reassignment to a vacant position.

Shulick v. State of Wyoming · filed 2024-04-10(n)(1)

An employee is “otherwise qualified” if he “with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the employment position.” Jarvis v. Potter, 500 F.3d 1113, 1121 (10th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Essential functions” are the “fundamental job duties of the employment position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1). ... The district court determined the WDOC had established that the mask requirement was an essential function. ... After determining that Mr. Shulick was unable to perform an essential function of his job, the WDOC offered him numerous opportunities for reassignment. ... Like the district court, we conclude Mr. Shulick did not present evidence that the WDOC failed to engage in the interactive process to identify a reasonable accommodation. Summary judgment was therefore appropriate.

Section 1630.2(n)(3) directs consideration of specified evidence, including time spent performing a function, the consequences of not requiring it, collective-bargaining terms, and work experience, when determining whether a job function is essential.

Adduci v. Dart · filed 2024-04-26(n)(3), (n)(3)(iii), (n)(3)(iv), (n)(3)(v), (n)(3)(vi)

Despite not being addressed by either party, the Court nevertheless examines the other factors within 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3) and case law regarding the essential functions of a CSDS. Neither party points to the CBA, see Tate, 51 F.4th at 798 (examining CBA in similar claim); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)(v), as providing relevant information (beyond the provision the CCSO invoked when temporarily reassigning staff in March and April 2020), and the CBA itself is not within the summary judgment record. An analysis of this factor therefore does not affect the analysis of a CSDS’s essential functions. ... Moreover, because it is undisputed a CSDS spends a significant portion of each shift on in-person security functions in which social distancing or separation from potentially symptomatic individuals is not assured, see 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)(iii), not requiring those functions of a CSDS would keep the CSDS from doing a large portion of what the parties agree the job entails, impacting a CSDS’s ability to ensure courthouse security. Moreover, courthouse emergencies may occur (DSOF ¶ 58), and an “emergency itself dictates when action must be taken.” See Tate, 51 F.4th at 796-98 (discussing essential functions of CCSO DOC correctional officer). Exempting a CSDS from responding to a security emergency that required the CSDS to be within six feet of another or to approach someone with symptoms suspicious for COVID-19 might “be innocuous” but could have “grave” consequences. Id. at 796-97; see also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)(iv). An analysis of these factors therefore is consistent with CCSO’s description of a CSDS’s essential functions. ... On this record, the Court finds the functions CCSO identified are the essential functions of a CSDS for the purposes of the ADA at all relevant times and that those essential functions may require physical proximity to others, prevent strict separation from individuals who might be symptomatic for COVID-19, and not allow for frequent handwashing.

Section 1630.2(n) identifies factors for determining whether a job function is essential, including the employer's judgment, the time spent performing it, the consequences of not requiring it, and the work experience of other employees.

VIERA v. SCOTTS COMPANY LLC · filed 2024-07-09(n)

Whether a job function is essential is evaluated on a case-by-case basis by examining a number of factors. ... Other factors for consideration include (1) the amount of time spent performing the function; (2) the consequences of not requiring the employee to perform the function; (3) the work experience of former employees; (4) the current work experience of current employees in similar roles; and (5) the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, if available. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n). ... In sum, the essential functions of a dispatcher involve multiple manual tasks, which a dispatcher working remotely could not perform, with or without a reasonable accommodation. Thus, Viera has not demonstrated that she is a qualified individual.

Section 1630.2(n) identifies factors for determining a job's essential functions, including the employer's judgment, written job descriptions, time spent performing the function, consequences of nonperformance, collective-bargaining terms, and the work experience of past and current incumbents.

Hoffman v. City College of New York · filed 2024-08-26(n)

In determining what are the "essential functions” of a job, courts consider, inter alia, “[t]he employer’s judgment as to which functions are essential”; “[w]ritten job descriptions prepared before advertising or interviewing applicants for the job”; “{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 “(t]he current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs.” Stone v. City of Mount Vernon, 118 F.3d 92, 97 (2d Cir. 1997) (citing ADA regulations at 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)).

Section 1630.2(n)(1) defines essential functions as the fundamental duties of the employment position, which may include required in-person meetings and training that an employee must be able to perform with or without accommodation.

Groshans v. Del Toro · filed 2024-09-05(n)(1)

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)(1). ... Defendant has established that Plaintiff could not perform an essential function because of her disability. First, occasionally entering her workplace or other public spaces to meet with other government employees or attend trainings was an essential function of Plaintiff’s job.

Section 1630.2(n)(3) identifies factors courts may consider in deciding whether a job duty is an essential function, including the employer’s judgment, written job descriptions, time spent performing the duty, consequences of not requiring it, and the experience of past and current incumbents.

Rowe v. McDonough · filed 2024-09-30(n)(3)

In order to determine whether a specific duty is an “essential function of the job,” courts may look to the factors provided by ADA regulations, including “the employer’s judgment as to which functions are essential; written job descriptions; the amount of time spent on the job performing the function; the consequences of not requiring the incumbent to perform the function; the work experience of past incumbents in the job; and the current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs.” Saroki-Keller, 568 F. Supp. 3d at 865-66 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3); Green, 683 F. App'x at 492). ... Based on the record submitted by the parties, McDonough has established that timekeeping and greeting and screening visitors are essential functions of a secretary at the department where Rowe was employed.

Section 1630.2(n)(3) identifies evidence relevant to determining 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 terms, and work experience.

REDENBAUGH v. UNITED STATES STEEL CLAIRTON WORKS · filed 2024-10-07(n)(3)

A job function may be considered essential for a variety of reasons. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(2). The ADA dictates what evidence relating to whether a particular job function is essential may include, 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 incumbents in the job; and/or (vii) The current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3). “[W]Jhether 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 v. Pocono Medical Ctr., 142 F.3d 138, 148 (Gd Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). While the plaintiff carries the burden to show that she is a qualified individual, “the employer has the burden of showing a particular job function is an essential function of the job.” Supinski, 413 F. App’x 536, 540 (3d Cir. 2011) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). ... This is all to say that ample evidentiary support exists in the record that ANSI-certified metatarsal boots were required of all employees after 2014, and Redenbaugh knew of this requirement. She actually wore compliant boots from 2014 to 2020. Contrary to Redenbaugh’s argument otherwise, no genuine issue of material fact exists that an essential function of the Chemical Analyst position was the wearing of ANSI-certified metatarsal boots.

Section 1630.2(n)(3) directs courts to consider the employer’s judgment, written job descriptions, time spent performing the function, consequences of not requiring it, and past incumbents’ work experience when deciding whether a job duty is essential.

Cetin v. Kansas City Kansas Community College · filed 2024-10-29(n)(3)

Essential functions are the fundamental job duties of the employee’s position. ... In determining whether a job function is essential, the Court considers “(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 incumbent to perform the function; and (5) the work experience of past incumbents in the job.” ... Here, plaintiff has presented evidence that (1) her written job description does not require her to teach in person; (2) with no negative consequences, she taught effectively from home since the spring of 2020 (except for the fall of 2021 when she taught on campus); (3) plaintiff received high ratings while teaching from home; (4) her supervisor stated that it was not essential that she work in person; (5) defendant allows other teachers to work from home; and (6) defendant is equipped to offer virtual classes. ... On this record, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, a reasonable jury could easily find that teaching from campus is not an essential element of plaintiff’s position and that her request for that accommodation was reasonable.

Section 1630.2(n) treats whether a job function is essential as a fact-specific inquiry guided by factors such as the employer’s judgment, job descriptions, time spent, consequences of not performing the function, and work experience.

Barbier v. Raimondo · filed 2024-12-02(n)

“Although courts are deferential to an employer’s judgment regarding what functions are essential to a particular position, the question involves ‘a fact-specific inquiry into both the employer’s description of a job and how the job is actually performed in practice.’” Kelleher v. Fred A. Cook, Inc., 939 F.3d 465, 469 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting Stevens v. Rite Aid Corp., 851 F.3d 224, 229 (2d Cir. 2017)). While no one factor is dispositive, relevant factors courts consider include the employer’s judgment, written job descriptions, the amount of time spent on the job, the consequences of not requiring the employee to perform the function, the mention of the function in a collective bargaining agreement, the work experience of past employees, and the work experience of current employees. Stone v. City of Mount Vernon, 118 F.3d 92, 97 (2d Cir. 1997) (citing ADA regulations at 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)).

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

Russo v. National Grid, USA. · filed 2024-12-20(n)(1)

The regulations promulgated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission define essential functions as the “fundamental job duties” of the position, but not “the marginal functions of the position.”

The essential functions of a job are determined case by case using the employer’s judgment and job description, along with factors such as time spent performing the function, the consequences of not performing it, and the work experience of past and similar-job incumbents; a function may also be essential because the position exists to perform it, few employees can share it, or it requires specialized expertise.

Walls v. Lee Memorial Health System · filed 2025-01-21(n)(3), (n)(2)

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). ... In addition, the EEOC regulations identify three nonexclusive bases on which a job function may be deemed 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.” Holly, 492 F.3d at 1258-59 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(2)).

The regulation identifies factors for determining whether a job function is essential, including time spent performing it, consequences of not requiring it, collective-bargaining terms, past incumbents’ experience, and similar-job incumbents’ experience.

Wilkie v. Outokumpu Stainless USA, LLC · filed 2024-11-19(n)(3)

A function of a position may also be considered essential based on: “(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.” Davis v. Florida Power & Light Co., 205 F.3d 1301, 1305 (11th Cir. 2000) (citing 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(n)(3)).

Section 1630.2(n)(1) defines essential functions as the fundamental duties of a position and requires consideration of the employer’s judgment about which functions are essential.

Fowlkes v. Department of Defense · filed 2025-02-03(n)(1)

Essential functions of a job are defined as “‘fundamental job duties of the employment position the individual with a disability holds.’” Jakubowski v. Christ Hosp., Inc., 627 F.3d 195, 201 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1)). ... Generally, courts will give consideration to “the employer’s judgment as to what functions of a job are essential.” Jakubowski, 627 F.3d at 201 (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1)) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Section 1630.2(n)(1) defines essential functions as the fundamental job duties of the employment position held by an individual with a disability.

Balchan v. New York City Housing Authority · filed 2025-02-24(n)(1)

The ADA does not define “essential functions,” but EEOC regulations define the term as “the fundamental job duties of the employment position the individual with a disability holds.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1). “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.” McMillan, 711 F.3d at 126.

Section 1630.2(n)(2) identifies when a job function is essential, including when the position exists to perform it, too few employees are available to perform it, or it requires specialized expertise.

MASSEY v. FOCKE & CO., INC. · filed 2025-03-05(n)(2)

“A job function is essential when ‘the reason the position exists is to perform that function,’ when there aren't enough employees available to perform the function, or when the function is so specialized that someone is hired specifically because of his or her expertise in performing that function.” Jacobs v. N.C. Admin. Off. of the Cts., 780 F.3d 562, 579 (4th Cir. 2015) (quoting 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(2)). ... The Complaint further establishes that Mr. Massey’s new position required his breaks to be occupied by meetings with outside contractors, that he requested additional breaks, and that he could perform the essential function of his position with that requested accommodation. ... At this juncture, Mr. Massey has alleged sufficient facts to establish he is a qualified individual. Dismissal at this early stage is unwarranted.

Section 1630.2(n) defines essential job functions as the fundamental duties of a position and directs courts to consider factors such as the employer’s judgment and written job descriptions.

Klimek v. CentraCare Health System · filed 2025-03-25(n)(1), (n)(3)

The first step focuses on “credentials,” Walz v. Ameriprise Fin., Inc., 779 F.3d 842, 845 (8th Cir. 2015), while the second step focuses on “the fundamental job duties of the employment position,” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1). ... To determine whether a job function is essential, courts consider several factors including “the employer’s judgment as to which functions are essential” and “written job descriptions” for the employee’s position. Kammueller v. Loomis, Fargo & Co., 383 F.3d 779, 786 (8th Cir. 2004) (citation omitted); see also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3). Generally, an employer’s judgment as it relates to essential job functions is considered “highly probative,” especially “when staffing is problematic.” Kammueller, 383 F.3d at 786 (citation omitted). Still, while “highly probative,” such evidence is not “conclusive,” so courts also look to how eliminating the job function would impact the employer’s business. Id. (citation omitted); see Dropinski v. Douglas County, 298 F.3d 704, 709 (8th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted) (“[T]he consequence of not requiring [an employee] to perform these functions demonstrates that they are, indeed, essential.”). There is no genuine dispute of material fact that compliance with the COVID-19 Policy was an essential job function.

Section 1630.2(n)(1) treats a job duty as an essential function when it is fundamental to the position, and the court applied that standard to direct student supervision.

Kakoolaki v. Galveston Indep School · filed 2025-04-02(n)(1)

Essential functions are those duties “fundamental” to a job such that “removing the function would fundamentally alter th[e] position.” ... Direct supervision of middle school students, both in classroom and during passing periods, is an essential function of this particular teaching position. This conclusion is supported by Kakoolaki’s accommodation request for a full-time aide, indicating that classroom teachers spend a considerable amount of time supervising students. GISD’s job description provides further support. The posting states that a primary responsibility of teachers is classroom management; given the visual demands of supervising middle-school students, no reasonable jury could find that direct supervision is not an essential function of this position.

Section 1630.2(n)(3) identifies 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 performing it, and work experience in the position and similar positions.

Simpson v. American Fidelity Assurance Co · filed 2025-05-08(n)(3)

Factors bearing on this inquiry include the employer’s judgment, written job descriptions, the time spent performing the function, the consequences if the individual cannot perform the function, the work experience of those in the position in the past, and the current work experience of those in similar positions. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3).

Section 1630.2(n)(3)(G) directs fact finders to consider the employer’s judgment when determining a job’s essential functions.

Morris v. Asante Health Systems · filed 2025-06-25(n)(3)(G)

However, employers have the ultimate authority to determine what are the essential functions of a job position, and if it requires in-person work. See, e.g., Bates v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 511 F.3d 974, 991 (9th Cir. 2007) (in similar ADA accommodation context, “the ADA and implementing regulations direct fact finders to consider, among other things, ‘the employer’s judgment as to what functions of a job are essential’”) (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8)); 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8) (ADA requires that “consideration shall be given to the employer’s judgment as to what functions of a job are essential”); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)(G).