The Third Circuit finds that pneumonia is a temporary impairment not a protected disability under the ADA. Plaintiff argued that his ability to breathe was significantly impaired by asthma, but his employer didn’t know about the asthma, only the pneumonia. – case dismissed.

Insulin-dependent diabetic applicants for positions which required driving were automatically disqualified because of a “genuine substantial risk.” The Fifth Circuit no longer tolerates this. An individualized assessment must be conducted.

A nurse was restricted from lifting over 40 pounds after a diskectomy. The Eight Circuit holds that the general lifting restriction without more is insufficient to constitute a disability protected by the ADA.

A sales manager was put on a 3-month disability leave because of extreme work stress which caused chest pain and hypertension. After the leave he was transferred to another position at a lower salary. His disability discrimination case failed because he was not significantly restricted from working in a broad class of jobs.

A service worker had back injuries which “affected his life and the lives of his family members.” However, he did not have an ADA-protected disability because he was able to perform all major life activities. “While he continued to experience some pain and discomfort while performing some tasks and was not able to perform some activities to the extent that he would have liked, he never testified that he was unable to perform any major life activities.”

A newspaper reporter who could not type or write for extended periods because of a repetitive stress disorder did not have a protected disability because she was not limited in a major life activity. The Court found the major life activity of performing manual tasks included a broad range of activities that she could perform such as shopping, driving, and dressing.

A 350 pound man was the most qualified candidate. Nonetheless, he was not hired by L.A. Weight Loss Centers Inc. because the company is “image conscious.” The Court found that the applicant was not protected by the ADA because he was not regarded as unable to perform a wide range of tasks.

An employee requested an accommodation but he failed to submit requested medical evidence and refused to take a test to determine his qualifications. By failing to participate in the process to find an accommodation, the employee lost his ADA rights.

The Tenth Circuit joins the Third and First Circuits holding that workers who do not have an ADA-protected disability but who are regarded as having such a disability are entitled to accommodations. Four other circuits disagree.

A cut finger caused co-workers to come into contact with a janitor’s blood. The employer may require a blood test for hepatitis and HIV which was found in this case to be “job-related and consistent with business necessity.”