Eleventh Circuit Clarifies Evidence Needed For ADA Claim
 
March 14, 2001
 
Marilyn J. Holifield- Miami

Recently, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals clarified the type of evidence that a plaintiff must present to establish a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). A plaintiff seeking relief under the ADA who alleges that an impairment significantly restricts the performance of a major life activity must present comparator evidence of how well the average person in the general population performs the major life activity in question.

Plaintiff Donald Maynard suffered an on-the-job back injury in which he herniated a disc in his back. As a result of the back injury and related pain, Maynard could not lift more than 14 pounds, sleep sufficiently, sit in a chair for more than 15 to 20 minutes at a time, stand for more than 10 to 15 minutes at a time, bend at the waist, run up steps or walk more than 40 to 50 yards at a time. When he was fired nearly two years later because the Company said it was discontinuing the product line on which Maynard worked, he claimed he was actually fired because of his back problems in violation of the ADA. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the trial court’s granting of Defendant Pneumatic’s motion for judgment as a matter of law because Maynard failed to prove that he had a disability within the meaning of the ADA.

In determining whether Maynard qualified as a person with a disability the court considered (1) whether Maynard’s back injury was a physical impairment; (2) whether the activities that Maynard claimed were substantially limited by his back injury qualified as major life activities under the ADA and (3) whether Maynard’s back injury substantially limited the major life activities identified by Maynard.

Maynard never explained how Pneumatic supposedly regarded him as disabled in the major life activity of working. Assuming that, at most, Pneumatic regarded Maynard as unable to perform a specific job, the court noted that this would be insufficient to prove that Pneumatic regarded Maynard as substantially limited in the major life activity of working, citing Murphy v. United Parcel Serv., Inc. (1999).

Maynard claimed that his back problems significantly restricted his ability to walk since he could not walk more than 40 to 50 yards. The court agreed that Maynard’s back injury was a physical impairment, and walking qualifies as a major life activity under the ADA. But the court concluded that Maynard failed to establish a prima facie case because he failed to demonstrate that his ability to walk was substantially limited as compared to the average person in the general population’s ability to walk.

Noting that the requirement of comparator evidence to demonstrate a plaintiff’s substantial limitations has been largely overlooked in ADA cases, the court emphasized:

“To establish that an impairment substantially limits a major life activity such as sitting, standing or walking, an ADA plaintiff must not merely provide evidence of her own limitations.... The first key is to develop comparative evidence. Who, then, is the relevant comparator? The EEOC regulations provide that it is ‘the average person in the general population.’”

This requirement of comparator evidence, however, may be satisfied where, for example, case law, regulations or the EEOC’s interpretive guidance makes clear that a plaintiff’s condition substantially limits a major life activity as compared to the average person in the general population. On the other hand, when comparator evidence cannot be drawn from the case law, regulations or the EEOC’s interpretative guidance, the Eleventh Circuit clarified that a plaintiff must nevertheless provide evidence that permits a determination of whether the impairment is substantially limiting as compared to the average person in the general population.

For more information please contact Marilyn Holifield at 1-888-688-8500 or at mholifie@hklaw.com.

Related Practices