Few people "regarded as disabled" under ADA 01-01-00

Employers have feared that the Americans with Disabilities Act would protect many people who are not disabled, but who arguably are "regarded as disabled." Recent cases make clear that only a very few people will be protected by the courts under this provision.

Requiring an employee to take a fitness-for-duty mental examination does not mean that he is illegally "regarded as disabled" according to the court in Sullivan v. River Valley School Dist., 9 A.D. Cases 1711 (6th Cir.,1999)

The fact that an employee was in an automobile accident, and missed work due to several medical appointments, did not mean that she was "regarded as disabled" by her employer. The court of appeals said, "It is well known that medical appointments, in and of themselves, do not signal the existence of a disability." Gorbitz v. Corvilla, 9 A.D. Cases 1772 (7th Cir., 1999)

Just because a manager referred to an employee as "the mentally ill guy on Prozac" did not prove that he regarded the employee as being disabled, according to the court in Hopkins v. Electronic Data Systems, ___ F.3d ___, 1999 FED App. 0385P (6th Cir., 1999) Note: We don't recommend managers referring to employees this way!

The only case in late 1999 that found an employee was regarded as disabled was one where the employee was diagnosed with lymphoma, and immediately after telling his management, he received a memo in which concern was expressed over the "level of time and commitment required" for his job and whether he would be able to meet it.

Heyman v. Queens Village, ___ F.3d ___, 1999 WL 1079971 (2nd Cir., 1999)

Information here is correct at the time it is posted. Case decisions cited here may be reversed. Please do not rely on this information without consulting an attorney first.