Definition of Disability Under the ADA: 
A Practical Overview and Update



Introduction
The first issue in almost all cases arising under Title I of 
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is whether the 
individual has a "disability."  The ADA defines disability 
as an impairment that substantially limits a major life 
activity; a record of such an impairment; or being 
regarded as having such an impairment. Numerous court 
cases have been dismissed based on a finding that the 
individual did not have a disability as defined under the 
ADA.  

When an employer is presented with a request for 
accommodation or other action required by the ADA, 
whether the individual has an ADA disability is often an 
important threshold question.  At times, the disability may 
be obvious.  In other situations, ADA coverage may not 
be very clear. Where it is a close call as to whether the 
impairment is sufficiently severe or of sufficient duration to 
qualify as an ADA disability, an employer with good 
human resources management may skip ahead to the 
issue of reasonable accommodation.  If the employer is 
able to accommodate the individual's request and enable 
him/her to apply for a job or keep him/her on the job 
without undue cost or disruption, it may choose to do so 
as a smart employment practice regardless of whether 
there is an ADA obligation.

What is an ADA Impairment?
Generally, whether an individual has an ADA impairment 
is reasonably clear and not likely to be litigated if the 
impairment is obvious or there is a documented diagnosis 
combined with a substantial limitation on a major life 
activity.  An "impairment" may be physiological, mental, 
or psychological.  The ADA broadly defines the term 
"impairment" as any physiological disorder or condition, 
cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one 
or more of the body's multiple systems, including the 
special sense organs, neurological, musculoskeletal, 
respiratory, cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, 
genito-urinary, hemic and lymphatic, skin and endocrine 
systems.  The ADA further defines "impairment" as any 
mental or psychological disorder, such as mental 
retardation, organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental 
illness, and specific learning disabilities.  Neither the 
statute nor regulations interpreting and implementing the 
ADA attempt to list all covered disorders or conditions.  
A comprehensive listing would be almost impossible 
given the number and variety of possible impairments.  

The definition of impairment does not include physical 
characteristics (e.g., left-handedness or normal height or 
weight deviations), common personality traits (e.g., a 
quick temper), pregnancy, and cultural or economic 
disadvantages.  There are also certain statutory 
exclusions from the definition of disability, including 
individuals engaged in the current use of illegal drugs 
when the employer acts on the basis of such use.

What is a Major Life Activity?
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 
(EEOC) has stated in its ADA regulations  and other 
guidance documents that major life activities include, but 
are not limited to: caring for oneself, performing manual 
tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, 
learning, working, sitting, standing, lifting, reaching, 
sleeping and mental/emotional processes such as thinking, 
concentrating and interacting with others.  In litigation, the 
EEOC has also argued that eating and elimination are 
major life activities.   

Overall, there has been a lot of litigation examining what 
constitutes a major life activity.  Courts have generally, 
but not always agreed with the EEOC's listed activities 
and have also addressed other major life activities that the 
EEOC has not previously articulated.  At the highest 
level, in a case involving asymstomatic HIV infection, the 
Supreme Court found that the individual had a disability, 
holding that reproduction is a major life activity.   The 
Court noted that an activity does not have to have a 
public, economic, or daily dimension to be a major life 
activity.  The Supreme Court has also noted in passing 
that running is a major life activity. 

What Does "Substantially Limits" Mean? 
An impairment is only a "disability" under the ADA if it 
substantially limits one or more major life activities. An 
individual must be unable to perform, or be significantly 
limited in the ability to perform, an activity as compared 
with an average person in the general population.  The 
nature and severity, duration, and impact of the 
impairment would all be relevant factors to consider.  

The EEOC has taken the position that some impairments, 
for example, blindness or deafness, are inherently 
substantially limiting.  Many other impairments, however, 
may or may not be disabling depending on their impact 
on the particular individual's functioning.

There has been a lot of litigation on what "substantially 
limits" means.  A survey of the case law indicates that 
merely because an impairment affects a major life activity 
generally does not necessarily mean that it will meet the 
"substantially limits" standard.  The restriction must be 
significant.  Moreover, courts have sometimes looked at 
the activities the person can perform in determining 
whether s/he is actually substantially limited.  For 
example, in one case the court found that the plaintiff was 
not substantially limited in walking, noting that the plaintiff 
lived an active lifestyle, could hunt, fish and play eighteen 
holes of golf as well as anyone, march double time and 
run a mile and a half in 15 minutes.  

In terms of duration, short-term impairments with no 
long-term or permanent effects would not generally be 
considered "substantially limiting."  The trick is in defining 
short term. EEOC has stated that while this is always a 
case-by-case determination, an impairment that lasts a 
few days or weeks would generally be considered short 
term. (One EEOC Compliance Manual example found a 
six week impairment to be short term.) Various courts 
have held that conditions lasting from two weeks to three 
and a half months are short term and not considered to 
be a disability.  Other courts have found that conditions 
lasting seven months and ten months (six months of 
severe restriction followed by four months of moderate 
restriction) were not disabilities because they were 
respectively, too short or only of temporary duration.  

However, the EEOC and a number of courts have taken 
the position that if the impairment lasts at least several 
months, it may be substantially limiting.  The common 
dictionary definition of "several" is more than two or three 
but not many.   The EEOC's position is that an 
impairment does not have to be permanent to qualify as a 
disability. 

Frequently, it may not be possible to predict the exact 
duration of a medical condition.  The EEOC's position is 
that if a condition is severe with an indefinite and 
unknowable duration, it may qualify as a disability.  
Chronic conditions that are substantially limiting when 
active may also be disabilities.  This would include, for 
example, episodic conditions such as bi-polar disorder.  
A temporary impairment that may have permanent or 
residual long-term effects, such as a concussion resulting 
in permanent brain damage, may also rise to the level of 
disability.

In short, an impairment or its resultant effects must be 
sufficiently severe and sufficiently long term (at least 
several months) to rise to the level of disability, but need 
not be permanent. 

Example: An individual has a ten-pound lifting 
restriction because of a back impairment.  She would 
generally be viewed as being substantially limited in 
the major life activity of lifting because most people 
are able to lift amounts in this weight range. 

Example: An individual has a thirty-five pound lifting 
restriction because of a back injury.  He would 
generally not be viewed as substantially limited in the 
major life activity of lifting since this does not 
constitute a significant restriction on the ability to lift, 
work or engage in other major life activities when 
compared to the average person's abilities.

What About Mitigating Measures? 
The position initially taken in the EEOC regulations, and 
followed by many courts, was that mitigating measures 
such as medication or prosthetic devices should not be 
considered in determining whether an individual's 
impairment rises to the level of disability.  The Supreme 
Court, in a series of three decisions in 1999, took a 
completely different position.

In each of these cases, the primary issue before the 
Supreme Court was whether the plaintiffs--sister pilots 
whose uncorrected vision did not meet an airline's 
standards,  a mechanic whose high blood pressure 
precluded him from meeting Department of 
Transportation (DOT) standards for commercial drivers' 
licenses,  and a truck driver with monocular vision who 
could not meet regular DOT licensing standards --
qualified as persons with a disability.  The Court found 
that none of them did when mitigating measures, such as 
glasses, medication and compensating behaviors, were 
taken into account. The Court held that a disability exists 
only when an impairment substantially limits a major life 
activity, not where it "might," " could," or "would" be 
substantially limiting if mitigating measures were not taken. 

What Does EEOC Now Look for in Determining 
Disability?
After the Court issued its decisions, the EEOC sent new 
instructions to its field investigators regarding impairments 
and mitigating measures and compensating behaviors.  
EEOC instructed its investigators to focus on whether the 
measure or behavior fully or only partially controls the 
symptoms or limitations of the impairment.  


The instructions noted that the following major life 
activities may be significantly impacted by certain 
mitigating measures:

* Thinking, concentrating, and other cognitive 
functions may be impacted by side effects of 
certain medications;
* Walking, standing and lifting may be substantially 
limited even with the use of prosthetic legs, feet 
or hands;
* Eating - severe nausea may be caused by certain 
medications, or a very rigid eating schedule may 
be required;
* Caring for oneself - e.g., the changes/disruptions 
to daily activities that are required to control 
diabetes;
* Sleeping - certain medications may cause 
drowsiness or sleep may be disrupted by certain 
medications;
* Performing manual tasks - fine motor skills may 
be impacted by certain medications; 
* Reproduction - certain drugs for controlling 
seizures or psychiatric illnesses may cause birth 
defects thus substantially limiting procreation; and
* Working 

EEOC noted that mitigating measures may not be as 
effective in all circumstances (e.g., during times of stress 
or in certain weather conditions) or may sometimes lose 
effectiveness over time.  The EEOC field instructions also 
direct investigators to focus on whether a mitigating 
measure has any side effects, either alone or in 
combination with another mitigating measure, that may 
substantially limit a major life activity. 

Note that mitigating measures must be considered under 
all three prongs of the definition of disability.

Example: An individual has insulin dependent diabetes 
and uses insulin to attempt to control his condition. 
Nonetheless, he must eat certain types and quantities 
of food in order to minimize blood sugar fluctuations. 
 In addition, when his blood sugar level drops, he 
must stop whatever he is doing and find the kinds of 
food that will bring his sugar levels back to normal.  If 
he does not do this, he will experience disabling 
episodes of dizziness, weakness, and loss of 
concentration.  This individual could be viewed as 
being substantially limited in the major life activity of 
eating.  

EEOC has stated that some conditions, such as severe 
back problems and most forms of heart disease and 
cancer, may require a substantial limitation of a major life 
activity to prevent or lessen the likelihood or severity of 
recurrence.  For example, some people with severe back 
problemsr may be physically able to perform an activity, 
but cannot do so because performing it could make their 
condition more severe.  Most courts have also found that 
cancer is a covered disability, either because the cancer 
limits a major life activity or because there is a record of 
such a limitation.  EEOC has also stated that pregnancy 
would not be considered a disability, although 
complications associated with pregnancy, such as high 
blood pressure resulting in extended bed rest, may 
substantially limit major life activities.

Disabled in Working  
Working is probably the most difficult major life activity 
to analyze and the EEOC instructions state that its 
investigators initially should determine whether an 
impairment substantially limits a major life activity other 
than working.  If no other major life activities are signifi-
cantly limited , the last step of the analysis is to determine 
whether the individual is substantially limited in the major 
life activity of working.  

A person is substantially limited in the major life activity of 
working if s/he is significantly restricted in the ability to 
perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in 
various classes as compared with the average person 
having comparable training, skills and abilities.  The 
geographical area to which the person has reasonable 
access is considered, as is the number of jobs requiring 
similar skills and abilities (class) and dissimilar skills and 
abilities (broad range).  The inability to perform a single, 
particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in 
the major life activity of working.

EEOC has stated that a class of jobs could include a 
category like heavy labor jobs (e.g., a laborer with a 
back condition that precludes heavy lifting), jobs requiring 
the use of a computer (e.g., a person with a visual 
impairment that precludes them from reading off a 
computer screen), or clerical jobs.  

EEOC has also given examples of when a person is 
restricted in performing a "broad range of jobs."  These 
include someone precluded by allergy from working in all 
high-rise buildings and someone precluded because of a 
hearing impairment from working in all noisy 
environments like carpentry, auto repair, demolitions and 
airport grounds work. 

There has been a lot of litigation on this issue.  For 
example, one court analyzed whether an employee's 
tendonitis, which precluded her from working in jobs 
involving repetitive hand motions, substantially limited a 
class or broad range of jobs.  The court found that the 
restrictions precluded the employee from a wide group of 
jobs in the metropolitan area, including virtually any 
assembly line job that required repetitive movement.   In 
another case, the court considered whether a "roof 
bolter" with a shoulder injury was substantially limited in 
working when he could not perform overhead work, 
heavy lifting, or pulling and pushing out from his body.  
The court stated that this injury could pose a substantial 
limitation in working because it might apply to a broad 
range of jobs, including any position in at the coal mine or 
in related work such as construction.   

Another court found that a person's non-insulin 
dependent diabetes caused him to become so irritable 
that he could not get along with co-workers and others 
substantially limited him in working.  The court opined 
that the ability to get along with coworkers and customers 
is necessary for all but the most solitary of occupations. 

Courts have found that the inability to work for a 
particular supervisor  or in a particular building  does 
not rise to the level of being unable to perform a class of 
jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes.  

Another important point is that courts sometimes seem to 
focus on what jobs the person can still do in determining 
whether the person is disabled in working, which is not 
part of the EEOC's analysis.  For example, in one case, 
the Supreme Court held that the plaintiff was not 
substantially limited in working, noting that there were 
many other jobs the plaintiff could perform, including 
mechanic jobs not requiring DOT certification. 

Record of Disability
The second prong of the definition of disability covers 
persons who have a history of, or have been classified or 
misclassified as having, a physical or mental impairment 
that substantially limited one or more major life activities.  
Note that an individual who has a record of disability 
under other laws or regulations does not necessarily have 
a record or disability under the ADA.  For example, a 
finding of disability under workers' compensation laws 
does not necessarily equate to an ADA disability.  

EEOC has also noted that since mitigating measures must 
now be considered, some people who do not have a 
current disability will come under this second prong 
based on their condition prior to taking medication or 
beginning use of another mitigating measure.

Example: Several years ago, an individual 
experienced a severe form of depression that made it 
impossible to function in day-to-day life.  Her 
condition necessitated a month of hospitalization and 
a year of outpatient treatment, including 
psychotherapy and medication.  She has now made a 
full recovery.  This person has a record of disability 
under the ADA.

Regarded as Disabled 
An individual is covered under this prong if s/he can show 
that the employer made an employment decision based 
on myths, fears or stereotypes about disability.  The third 
prong of the definition of disability can arise in any of 
three ways.  

A person many have an impairment that is not 
substantially limiting, but is treated by the employer as 
though it is substantially limiting.  For example, an 
individual with controlled high blood pressure may have 
no physical restrictions. If the employer refuses to assign 
him/her physical work of any kind in light of his condition, 
the employer is regarding him/her as being disabled.

A person may have an impairment that is only physically 
limiting because of the attitudes of others.  For example, 
an employee has severe facial scars from an accident.  
The employer refuses to put this person in a customer 
service position, although s/he is able to do the job, 
because it is concerned about the public's reaction.  This 
impairment is only substantially limiting because of the 
negative attitudes of others. 

An employer incorrectly believes that a lifeguard has a 
serious heart condition and removes him/her from the job. 
 In fact, the lifeguard does not have a heart condition.  
The employer is regarding him/her as having a 
substantially limiting impairment.

The EEOC has stated that an employer's knowledge of 
an impairment (or perceived impairment) is critical in 
"regarded as" cases.  Courts have also adopted this 
position.  For example, one court rejected the 
employee's "regarded as" claim because the employee 
produced no evidence that supervisors and management 
were aware that she had a mental impairment diagnosis.  
 On the other hand, an employer's awareness of an 
employee's impairment is not enough by itself to 
demonstrate that the employer regarded the employee as 
disabled or that the perception caused the adverse 
employment action. 

Regarded as Disabled in Working
Many "regarded as" cases involve the major life activity 
of working.  To be covered under this prong, an 
individual would need to show that the employer 
perceived him/her as having an impairment that prevented 
or substantially limited work in a class of jobs or a broad 
range of jobs in various classes (not just one job or a 
narrow class of jobs).  The EEOC has taken the position 
that it will analyze these cases by looking at the criterion 
that the employer has used to disqualify the individual and 
determine whether the criteria applies to one particular 
job or to a class or broad range of jobs.  Such criteria 
might include:

* vision or hearing standards
* ability to lift certain weights
* working at certain heights 
* working with certain tools, equipment or 
substances
* ability to work under high stress situations.

Note that the criteria need not be a formal requirement 
listed in a job description or elsewhere but rather is the 
reason that the employer thinks the person cannot do the 
job.  The EEOC has stated that an employer can be 
liable under the "regarded as" section of the ADA only if 
it believes that the impairment precludes or restricts the 
person from meeting a qualification standard or criterion. 
 This approach is also reflected in the case law. 

For example, in one case the court determined that the 
employer believed that the employee could not handle the 
stress or hours of a supervisory position following surgery 
for a brain tumor and demoted him.  The court concluded 
that this employer regarded the employee as unable to 
perform a class of supervisory jobs.   



Genetic Discrimination
The "regarded as" part of the definition of disability may 
protect an individual against discrimination based on 
genetic information relating to illness, disease or other 
disorders.  For example, the EEOC has stated that if an 
employer withdraws a job offer based upon a person's 
medical history showing an increased susceptibility to 
colon cancer, because of the employer's concerns about 
matters such as productivity, insurance costs, and 
attendance, the employer would be regarding the person 
as having a substantially limiting impairment.

Practical Tips on Determining Disability
Medical documentation is a good starting point for 
determining disability since it may include information on 
limitations related to an impairment.  Generally, the 
individual with a disability will be able to describe his/her 
limitations.  Friends, family members, supervisors, 
rehabilitation counselors and occupational or physical 
therapists may also have direct knowledge of a person's 
restrictions.  The employer's own observations may also 
supply or confirm relevant information relating to 
disability. 

Resources: 
ADA Regional Disability and Business Technical 
Assistance Center Hotline
(800) 949-4232 (voice/TDD)

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 
1801 L Street, NW
Washington, DC  20507
To be connected to the nearest field office, call (800) 
669-4000 (voice), (800) 669-6820 (TTD). To order 
publications, call (800) 669-3362 (voice), (800) 800-
3302 (TDD).  For on-line information, including EEOC 
Compliance Manual Section 902, Definition of the Term 
"Disability," go to: http://www.eeoc.gov

This brochure is one of a series on human resources practices 
and workplace accommodations for persons with disabilities 
edited by Susanne M. Bruyère, Ph.D., CRC, SPHR, Director, 
Program on Employment and Disability, School of Industrial 
and Labor Relations - Extension Division, Cornell University.  
It was written in September, 2001 by Sheila D. Duston, an 
attorney-mediator practicing in the Washington, DC 
metropolitan area.  

Cornell University was funded in the early 1990's by the U.S. 
Department of Education National Institute on Disability and 
Rehabilitation Research as a National Materials Development 
Project on the employment provisions (Title I) of the ADA 
(Grant #H133D10155).  These updates, and the development of 
new brochures, have been funded by Cornell's Program on 
Employment and Disability, the Pacific Disability and Business 
Technical Assistance Center, and other supporters.

Cornell University currently serves as the  Northeast Disability 
and Business Technical Assistance Center. Cornell is also 
conducting employment policy and practices research, 
examining private and federal sector employer responses to 
disability civil rights legislation.  This research has been 
funded by the U.S. Department of Education National Institute 
on Disability and Rehabilitation Research  (Grant 
#H133A70005) and the Presidential Task Force on 
Employment of Adults with Disabilities.  

The full text of this brochure, and others in this series, can be 
found at: www.ilr.cornell.edu/ped/ada.  Research reports 
relating to employment practices and policies on disability 
civil rights legislation, are available at: 
www.ilr.cornell.edu/ped/surveys

For further information, contact the Program on Employment 
and Disability, Cornell University, 102 ILR Extension, Ithaca, 
New York 14853-3901; 607/255-2906 (Voice), 607/255-2891 
(TTY), or 607/255-2763 (Fax).

More information is also available from the ADA Technical 
Assistance Program and Regional Disability and Business 
Technical Assistance Centers, (800) 949-4232 (voice/TTY), 
www.adata.org


Disclaimer

This material was produced by the Program on Employment and 
Disability, School of Industrial and Labor Relations-Extension 
Division, Cornell University, and funded by a grant from the 
National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation and 
Rehabilitation Research (grant #H133D10155).  The U.S. Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission has reviewed it for 
accuracy.  However, opinions about the Americans with 
Disabilities Act (ADA) expressed in this material are those of the 
author, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the Equal 
Employment Opportunity Commission or the publisher.  The 
Commission's interpretations of the ADA are reflected in its 
ADA regulations (29 CFR Part 1630), Technical Assistance 
Manual for Title I of the Act, and EEOC Enforcement Guidance.

Cornell University is authorized by the National Institute on 
Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) to provide 
information, materials, and technical assistance to individuals 
and entities that are covered by the Americans with Disabilities 
Act (ADA).  However, you should be aware that NIDRR is not 
responsible for enforcement of the ADA.  The information, 
materials, and/or technical assistance are intended solely as 
informal guidance, and are neither a determination of your legal 
rights or responsibilities under the Act, nor binding on any 
agency with enforcement responsibility under the ADA.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has issued 
enforcement guidance which provides additional clarification of 
various elements of the Title I provisions under the ADA.  
Copies of the guidance documents are available for viewing and 
downloading from the EEOC web site at:  http://www.eeoc.gov 


  29 C.F.R. Part 1630 (2001).

  For an excellent survey of the case law and EEOC policy, see 
Resolving ADA Workplace Questions, How Courts and Agencies are 
Dealing with Employment Issues, David K. Fram (National 
Employment Law Institute, 10th Edition, April 2001)(referred to as 
Resolving ADA Workplace Questions).  Generalized references to 
case law trends or court findings throughout this article are credited to 
this comprehensive resource unless otherwise noted.  

 Bragdon v. Abbot, 524 U.S. 624 (1998).

 Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999).
 Lamb v. Bell County Coal Corp, 1999 US APP LEXIS 22201 (6th 
Cir. 1999)(unpublished).  

  See Resolving ADA Workplace Questions, Ch. 1.

 The American Heritage Dictionary (3rd Ed. 1996).

  Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999).
  Murphy v. United Parcel Service, 527 U.S. 516 (1999).
  Kirkingburg v. Albertson's, 527 U.S. 555 (1999).
  See Resolving ADA Workplace Questions, Ch. I. But see Ellison v. 
Software Spectrum, Inc., 85 F.3d 187 (5th Cir. 1996)(woman who 
was treated for breast cancer with daily radiation did not have a 
disability under the ADA, because she was not limited in the major 
life activity of working, which was the only major life activity raised at 
the lower court level).
  See Resolving ADA Workplace Questions, Ch. I.
 
  Depaoli v. Abbott Laboratories, 140 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 1998).

  Cochrum v. Old Ben Coal Co., 102 F.3d 908 (7th Cir. 1996).

  Gilday v. Mecosta County, 124 F.3d 760 (6th Cir.), amended, 7 AD 
Cases 1268 (6th Cir. 1997).
  See, e.g., Weiler v. Household Finance Corp., 101 F.3d 519 (7th 
Cir. 1996).  
  See, e.g., Mobley v. Board of Regents of University System of 
Georgia, 924 F. Supp. 1179 (S.D. Ga. 1996). 
  Murphy v. United Parcel Service, 527 U.S. 516 (1999)
  Webb v. Mercy Hospital, 102 F.3d 958 (8th Cir. 1996).
  See, e.g., Reeves v. Johnson Controls World Services, Inc., 140 
F.3d 144 (2d. Cir. 1998).
  Cline v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 294 (4th Cir. 1998).
Definition of Disability Under the ADA: A Practical Overview and Update


September, 2000	Cornell University