KHVPF Insight
COURTS GRAPPLE WITH DEFINITION OF DISABILITY
Thirty-five years after the Americans with Disabilities Act’s enactment, courts still wrestle with what it means to have a qualified disability. Under Title I of the ADA, a “qualified individual” is protected from discrimination in hiring, promotions, training, pay, and other employment terms. Employers must also provide reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship. Three 2025 cases illustrate the ongoing challenges.
Are Former Employees Covered? No. In June 2025, the Supreme Court held in Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida that a disabled former employee could not sue for disability discrimination after losing retiree health benefits, because a former employee who neither “holds” nor “desires” a job is not a “qualified individual” under the ADA.
Stanley, a Sanford firefighter, retired early in 2018 due to disability, short of the 25 years required for enhanced retiree health benefits. She sued, claiming that the City discriminated by offering better retiree coverage to retirees with 25 years of service than to early retirees with disabilities. The Supreme Court assumed that the City’s plan was discriminatory, but addressed only whether Stanley was a “qualified individual” under the ADA. It said no, emphasizing the statute’s use of present-tense verbs: protection applies to someone who “can perform the essential functions” of a job she “holds or desires.” Retirees, who neither hold jobs nor seek them, fall outside the statute’s scope.
Are Employees Who Can Perform Their Jobs Without Accommodation Entitled to One Anyway? Perhaps. In March 2025, the Second Circuit held in Tudor v. Whitehall Central School District that an employee may be entitled to reasonable accommodations even if she can perform her job without them. The court joined several other circuits, including the Sixth Circuit in an unpublished decision.
In Tudor, a teacher diagnosed with PTSD requested brief afternoon breaks to manage her condition. She admitted that she could perform her job without the breaks, but testified she would suffer “great duress and harm” without them. The Second Circuit held she was a qualified individual under the ADA, emphasizing that accommodations are meant to support employee wellbeing and workplace inclusion, not just to ensure baseline job performance. Citing the ADA’s definition of a qualified individual as someone “who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions” of the job, the court reasoned that the statute covers employees who could perform the job without accommodation, and is not limited to employees who need an accommodation to do the job.
Is Temporary Illness a Qualified Disability? Sometimes. In March 2025, the Sixth Circuit held in Cook v. Warren Screw Products that a delivery driver with a temporary stomach bug was not disabled under the ADA. While unpublished and fact-specific, the decision offers a useful summary of the law on temporary impairments.
The court acknowledged Supreme Court precedent that an impairment need not be permanent or long-term, so some temporary conditions qualify. But a plaintiff is not disabled simply because he cannot perform a “discrete task or a specific job.” Instead, the impairment must limit a person’s ability to perform a “class of jobs” or a “broad range of jobs.” Thus, while a two-month convalescence after cancer surgery might qualify, a stomach bug would not—at least absent evidence that it substantially limited broader life activities.
The court also analyzed the ADA’s “regarded as disabled” provision, which protects employees from discrimination based on an employer’s mistaken belief that they have a limiting impairment. Citing EEOC regulations, the court held that an employee cannot be regarded as disabled if the impairment is “transitory and minor, with “transitory” defined as lasting six months or less. Notably, this six-month limitation applies only to the “regarded as” prong, not to actual disabilities. Thus, an impairment expected to last fewer than six months may substantially limit a major life activity for purposes of actual disability, but not for perceived disability.
Takeaway. These cases highlight the continuing uncertainty in defining ADA coverage and accommodation obligations. Employers should regularly review their disability and accommodation policies to ensure compliance amid a perpetually uncertain landscape.