DECISIONS ON DISABILITY UNDER THE ADA
A. Disability
1. Disability is determined on a case-by-case basis. Albertson’s, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. 555 (1999), citing 42 U.S. C. § 12101(2); Sutton v. UnitedAirlines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999).
2. A disability is a condition which "substantially limits" one or more major life activities. 42 U.S.C. 12102(2)(A).
a. The extent of the limitation on a major life activity caused by the impairment must "substantially limit." Albertson’s, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, supra, citing 42 U.S.C. § 12101(2)(A). The EEOC regulation requires a "significant restriction." 29 C.F.R. § 1630.20)(1)(ii). Merely a significant "difference" is not a lisignificant restriction." Albertson’s, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, supra.
b. A determination of a disability must be made with reference to the mitigating measures the employee uses, such as glasses or medication or the body's own systems like the brain's compensation. Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., supra; Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 527 U.S. 516 (1999); Albertson’s v. Kirkingburg, supra.
c. If a condition, when corrected or medicated, does not substantially limit the employee in any major life activity, it is not a disability. Murphy, supra; Sutton, supra.
d. A condition, when corrected or medicated, may be a disability due to limitations that persist despite the employee's medication or the negative side effects of his medication. Murphy, supra; Sutton, supra.
e. Monocularity is not an impairment which "invariably" causes a substantial limitation of a major life activity, because of (1) the degree of visual acuity in the weaker eye, (2) the extent of the compensating adjustments, and (3) the ultimate scope of the restrictions on the visual abilities. Albertson’s, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, supra.
f. When referring to the major life activity of working, the EEOC regulation defines substantially limits as significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs, and the inability to perform a particular job is not sufficient. Murphy, supra; Sutton, supra; 29 C.F.R. §16300)(3)(i)
g. In determining whether physical impairments constitute disabilities, courts should determine whether the claimant is substantially limited in performing manual tasks of central importance to people’s daily lives, such as household chores, bathing and brushing one’s teeth. Toyota Motors v. Williams, 122 S.Ct. 681 (2002). Work-related impairments, such as those from carpal tunnel syndrome, are not necessarily critical outside the workplace. A limited ability to grip tools and to perform repetitive tasks may not be substantially limiting in a major life activity.
h. Reproduction is a major life activity, so asymptomatic HIV infection which limits reproduction is a disability under the ADA. Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624 (1998).
3. Able to perform the substantial functions of the job with accommodation.
a. An employer who requires a job qualification that an employee meet an otherwise applicable federal safety regulation does not have to justify enforcing the regulation because the standard may be waived experimentally in an individual case. Albertson’s, Inc. Kirkingburg, supra.
b. An employer is free to decide that some limiting, but not substantially limiting, impairments make individuals less than ideally suited for a job. Sutton, supra.
c. The EEOC regulation permitting employers to reject job applicants with medical conditions which might be acerbated by workplace conditions is valid. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Echazabal, 122 S.Ct. 2045 (2002).
4. Accommodation must be reasonable.
a. The employer must engage in an interactive process with a qualified disabled employee to identify precise limitations resulting from the disability and the potential reasonable accommodations that could overcome those limitations. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3); US Airways v. Barnett, 122 S.Ct. 1516, 1526 (2002)(Justice Stevens concurring).
b. ADA rights seldom override the seniority rights of co-workers. US Airways v. Barnett, 122 S.Ct. 1516 (2002). Frequent exceptions by the employer to favor nondisabled workers may require the employer to give similar exceptions from seniority rights to persons with disabilities. Id.
B. Regarded as disabled.
1. Employer mistakenly believes that the person's actual, nonlimiting impairment substantially limits one or more major life activity. Murphy, supra.
2. Does not include the inability to obtain a DOT health certification. Murphy, supra; Albertson’s, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, supra.
3. An employer's physical criteria are permissible so long as they do not cause the employer to make an employment decision based on an impairment, real or imagined, that it regards as substantially limiting a major life activity. Sutton, supra.
