FILED 

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 

 August 30, 2005 

 THOMAS K. KAHN 

 CLERK

[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 04-10629

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 02-01683-CV-T-27-TBM

CRIS D’ANGELO, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

versus 

CONAGRA FOODS, INC., 

d.b.a. Singleton Seafood Florida 

Sea Meridian Products, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

_________________________

(August 30, 2005)

Before BLACK, MARCUS and FAY, Circuit Judges.

MARCUS, Circuit Judge:

Appellant Cris D’Angelo, who suffers from vertigo, sued her former
2

employer, ConAgra Foods, Inc., (“ConAgra”) arguing that she was terminated

from her job as a product transporter on the basis of a disability, in violation of

Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). D’Angelo maintains that she

is disabled under the ADA both because she suffers from an impairment -- her

vertigo condition -- that substantially limits her ability to perform the major life

function of working, and because her employer regarded her as suffering from such

an impairment. 

The district court granted summary judgment for ConAgra on both issues. 

We now affirm as to the former, since D’Angelo’s vertigo prevents her only from

holding a narrow category of jobs and thus does not substantially impair her ability

to work. We reverse, however, as to D’Angelo’s claim that she was regarded as

having such an impairment. There are genuine issues of material fact concerning

whether ConAgra regarded D’Angelo as disabled and whether she was able to

perform the essential functions of her job in spite of her vertigo condition. 

Moreover, we conclude that the ADA, by its plain language, requires employers to

provide reasonable accommodations for employees they regard as disabled. 

Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings

consistent with this opinion. 

I.
3

The essential facts are these. Cris D’Angelo began working for ConAgra, in

its Singleton Seafood (“Singleton”) processing plant, in October 1998. She was

hired as a “spreader” -- an entry-level position requiring her to stand at a moving

conveyor belt (called the “spreader belt”) and spread shrimp with her fingers to

prevent it from sticking together. She also worked at times as a “packer,” packing

shrimp into boxes. D’Angelo was promoted twice during her tenure at Singleton. 

First, in February 1999, she was promoted to the position of “stacker,” which

required her to take sealed boxes off of a machine and stack them onto a pallet for

a forklift operator. D’Angelo was then promoted to the position of “transporter” or

“product transporter” in March 2000. As a transporter, she filled boxes with

shrimp and transported them around the plant using a pallet jack or by hand. In

addition, she performed various other tasks including forming, packing, and

stacking boxes.

D’Angelo was initially employed in Singleton’s “shrimp division,” until she

was transferred to the “fish division” around June 2000, where she continued to

work as a transporter. Upon transferring to the fish division, D’Angelo told her

supervisor that she was a product transporter and explained: “I can do anything

except work over the spreader because when I stand there staring at it for any

period of time, I start getting sick and dizzy.” As a transporter in the fish division,
4

D’Angelo stacked; pulled pallets with a jack; packed; worked in an area above the

plant floor called “the triangle” making sure that fish traveling down a chute did

not clog the machines; weighed product; and “once or twice” worked on the boxformer machine and the saw.

Generally, when D’Angelo came to work she was assigned a particular duty,

which she performed throughout her entire shift. On occasion, however, she and

other employees were asked to assist with other duties. The employee known as

the “line leader” assigned the particular job that an employee was required to

perform. The available jobs in the fish division included stacker, product

transporter, saw operator, stein operator, checker, forklift driver, area specialist,

line leader, machine operator, packer, and spreader. Each job was classified at a

particular level between I and V -- product transporter, for example, was Level III -

- and employees were considered qualified to work in any position at or below the

level of their own job.

In September 1998, shortly before she began working at Singleton,

D’Angelo was diagnosed with vertigo. She awoke one morning and, she

explained, “everything was spinning, . . . I couldn’t even lift my head up. I got up

and tried to . . . walk, and I was throwing up.” She was treated by a doctor, who

prescribed the anti-vertigo medication Antivert, a prescription D’Angelo says she
5

did not fill because she started to feel better. 

D’Angelo did not mention her condition when she was hired at Singleton. 

Several months into her job, however, D’Angelo experienced episodes of vertigo at

work, and informed her co-workers and supervisor that working over the spreader

belt was making her feel sick and dizzy. At times, D’Angelo explained that she

suffered from vertigo, and other times she told people only that the work made her

dizzy and sick. D’Angelo only became sick working on the spreader belt when she

had “to stare at that moving belt.” She explained: “If it’s a belt where you’re not

staring at it continuously, you’re looking away sometimes, . . . that’s not a

problem. Or if it’s moving near me but I’m not monitoring it, that’s not a

problem.” The only problem for her was when she had to stare at the belt

“[c]ontinuously without a break.”

D’Angelo’s vertigo condition resurfaced in September 2001 -- a year and a

half into her tenure as a product transporter -- when a new supervisor, Hipolito

Mendoza, assigned her to monitor a conveyor belt known as the “box-former belt.” 

This job, as D’Angelo described it, entailed “watching the boxes go . . . in a line”

to make sure they were formed properly and not mangled. This was a task that

D’Angelo had never previously performed, and doing it, she explained:

I start[ed] feeling like I have a fever, and I start[ed] feeling sort of

light-headed and off balance and nauseous. . . . I wanted to try to
6

make it work, but I felt myself getting sick, and I thought, “It’s not

worth it.” And I would try to look away, you know. If I can stand

over one of these belts and be looking away a lot, its okay, but to stare

continuously at it is what gets me sick. And the nature of the boxes

coming down the line, you have to stare continuously because if you

don’t you might miss one.

D’Angelo told her line leader, Darlene, that monitoring the box-former belt

was making her sick and dizzy, and asked for a different work assignment. 

Darlene told D’Angelo to go make boxes, which D’Angelo did until Mendoza

instructed her to return to the conveyor belt. D’Angelo explained that the

conveyor belt made her sick, and Mendoza asked for “documentation” of her

condition. 

Approximately a week later, D’Angelo gave Mendoza a copy of her

prescription for Antivert. Then, on September 20, 2001, she gave Thomas Cordy,

the plant manager, a note from Dr. Arthur E. Heng, which stated:

This patient should not work more than 5 nights a week because of

her medical condition. Also, she has a vertigo condition. This affects

her when her eyes have to look at moving objects such as belts. She

should avoid this situation since it could cause her to fall and sustain

injury.

D’Angelo explained in her deposition that the restriction on the number of days she

could work was unrelated to her vertigo condition, but rather was a result of a bout

with hepatitis and a prolonged case of the flu. 

After receiving the doctor’s note, Cordy met with Singleton’s Vice President
D’Angelo also continued to be treated by Dr. Heng, who wrote her a second note in 1

January 2002, stating:

This person should not work more than 5 nights a week because of her medical

condition. Patient is able to work around mechanized equipment, but is unable to

work at a conveyor belt for a long period of time due to vertigo, because it could

7

of Human Resources, Mark Richard Yates, to discuss whether there were any

available positions that would not require D’Angelo to look at and work around

moving equipment such as conveyor belts. They determined that no such positions

were available.

The next day, D’Angelo was terminated. Cordy gave her a letter of

termination, dated September 21, 2001, stating:

Your note from Doctor Heng, presented to me on September

20, 2001, was the first either the Human Resources Department or I

was made aware of your medical condition.

We have evaluated your position as it relates to the restrictions

that Doctor Heng has placed upon you. Unfortunately, your position

as a product transporter requires you to work around moving

conveyors and mechanized equipment. This is an integral portion of

the position. Additionally, overtime is a requirement requiring work

for more than five (5) nights per week; this too is an integral part of

the job.

Based upon the restrictions that have been placed upon you by

your physician, we are unable to allow you to continue to work at

Singleton Seafood because you pose a safety hazard to yourself and

your co-workers.

After her discharge, D’Angelo filed a union grievance, alleging unjust

termination. She never received a response.1
cause her to fall and sustain an injury.

D’Angelo’s vertigo condition persisted, and she began taking the medication Meclizine to treat

it.

The district court correctly observed that disability-discrimination claims under the 2

Florida Civil Rights Act are analyzed under the same framework as ADA claims, see Chanda v.

Englehard/ICC, 234 F.3d 1219, 1221 (11th Cir. 2000), and considered both sets of claims

together.

8

D’Angelo filed suit against ConAgra in the United States District Court for

the Middle District of Florida on September 16, 2002. D’Angelo alleged that

terminating her -- rather than reasonably accommodating her by exempting her

from working on the spreader belt and the box-former belt -- constituted disabilitybased discrimination, both because she was actually disabled as a result of her

vertigo condition and because her employer regarded her as disabled, in violation

of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., and

parallel provisions of the Florida Civil Rights Act, Fla. Stat. § 760.01 et seq. Soon 2

thereafter, ConAgra moved for summary judgment, arguing that D’Angelo was

neither disabled nor regarded as disabled within the meaning of the ADA, and that

she was not a “qualified individual” since she was unable to perform the essential

functions of her job.

The district court granted summary judgment for ConAgra. As to

D’Angelo’s argument that she was actually disabled, the court found that she was

not, since her vertigo condition did not significantly limit her in the major life
9

activity of working. As to D’Angelo’s argument that she was “regarded as”

disabled by ConAgra, the district court determined (1) that there existed a genuine

issue of material fact concerning whether ConAgra regarded her as disabled, but

(2) someone who is merely “regarded as” disabled (as opposed to actually

disabled) is not entitled to a reasonable accommodation under the ADA, and (3)

even if regarded-as plaintiffs were entitled to such accommodation, D’Angelo was

not a “qualified individual” anyway, since even with an accommodation, she could

not perform the essential job functions of a product transporter, one of which is

working on a conveyor belt.

It is from this order of final summary judgment that D’Angelo now appeals.

II.

D’Angelo makes three general arguments on appeal. First, she contends that

the district court improperly concluded she was not actually disabled, since her

vertigo condition is an impairment that substantially limits her ability to perform

the major life function of working. Second, she claims that the district court erred

in determining that the ADA does not require employers to make reasonable

accommodations for individuals regarded as disabled. Finally, D’Angelo says that

the district court incorrectly found that she was not a qualified individual able to

perform her essential job functions, since there is a genuine issue of material fact
10

as to whether working on a conveyor belt is an essential function of the product

transporter position.

We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing

the materials presented and drawing all factual inferences in a light most favorable

to the non-moving party. Bochese v. Town of Ponce Inlet, 405 F.3d 964, 975

(11th Cir. 2005). Summary judgment is properly granted when “there is no

genuine issue as to any material fact” and “the moving party is entitled to a

judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). “The movant bears the burden

of demonstrating the satisfaction of this standard, by presenting ‘pleadings,

depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the

affidavits, if any’ that establish the absence of any genuine, material factual

dispute.” Bochese, 405 F.3d at 975 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). 

A.

We begin our review of D’Angelo’s claims with an overview of the relevant

provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The ADA’s general prohibition

on disability-based discrimination unambiguously says:

No covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual

with a disability because of the disability of such individual in regard

to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of

employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms,

conditions, and privileges of employment.
11

42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). 

The ADA proceeds to identify three types of “disability” that place an

individual within the statute’s protections:

The term “disability” means, with respect to an individual--

(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or

more of the major life activities of such individual;

(B) a record of such an impairment; or

(C) being regarded as having such an impairment.

Id. § 12102(2). 

The statute protects, however, only qualified individuals with disabilities,

who are defined this way:

The term “qualified individual with a disability” means an individual

with a disability who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can

perform the essential functions of the employment position that such

individual holds or desires. 

Id. § 12111(8); see also, e.g., Davis v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 205 F.3d 1301,

1305 (11th Cir. 2000).

An employer’s failure to make reasonable accommodation for an otherwise

qualified disabled employee constitutes discrimination under the ADA, which

states, in pertinent part:

The term “discriminate” includes--

. . . .
12

(5)(A) not making reasonable accommodations to the known physical

or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a

disability . . . .

42 U.S.C. § 12112(b); see also Lucas v. W.W. Grainger, Inc., 257 F.3d 1249, 1255

(11th Cir. 2001) (“An employer unlawfully discriminates against a qualified

individual with a disability when the employer fails to provide ‘reasonable

accommodations’ for the disability -- unless doing so would impose undue

hardship on the employer.”).

Thus, to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination under the

ADA, a plaintiff must demonstrate “that (1) he has a disability, (2) he is a

‘qualified individual,’ which is to say, able to perform the essential functions of the

employment position that he holds or seeks with or without reasonable

accommodation, and (3) the defendant unlawfully discriminated against him

because of the disability.” Reed v. The Heil Co., 206 F.3d 1055, 1061 (11th Cir.

2000); see also, e.g., Lucas, 257 F.3d at 1255.

B.

D’Angelo first argued in district court that she had a “disability” both in the

sense defined in § 12102(2)(A) -- an actual physical impairment substantially

limiting her in a major life activity -- and in the sense defined in § 12102(2)(C) --

“being regarded as having such an impairment.” (We will refer to D’Angelo’s §
As an initial matter, ConAgra argues that D’Angelo abandoned her actual-impairment 3

claim on appeal, since she did not clearly assert it in her opening brief. Although the primary

focus of D’Angelo’s initial brief is undoubtedly her regarded-as claim, we find her actualimpairment claim adequately -- albeit inartfully -- raised on appeal. D’Angelo asserts at least

twice in her initial brief that she suffered from a disability, which was the basis for her firing. 

See Br. at 12 (“The record evidence was sufficient to lead a reasonable jury to conclude that

APPELLANT’S physical disability was the likely motivational factor in APPELLANT’S

termination.”); Br. at 27 (“[A] reasonable jury could easily infer that APPELLANT’S disability

was a factor in the termination of APPELLANT . . . .”). Moreover, in response to ConAgra’s

abandonment argument, D’Angelo, in her reply brief, clarifies that she did not intend to waive

this claim. D’Angelo filed her appellate briefs pro se, and we think it appropriate, in this case, to

address her actual-impairment claim, particularly since we have little trouble concluding that it

fails on the merits.

13

12102(2)(A) claim as her “actual-impairment” claim, and to her § 12102(2)(C)

claim as her “regarded-as” claim.) 

3

D’Angelo’s actual-impairment claim is simply that her vertigo condition

constituted an impairment that substantially limited her ability to perform the

major life activity of working. She explained:

It’s not possible to function normally during a vertigo attack. For

Appellant such episodes have been as short as several seconds and as

long as several weeks. Medication for vertigo has sometimes stopped

the symptoms and sometimes has not. Some medication administered

for vertigo has been as disabling as the vertigo itself. 

Reply Br. at 1. 

The district court correctly concluded that D’Angelo’s vertigo does not

qualify as an actual-impairment disability under the ADA, since it does not

“substantially limit[] one or more of the major life activities” of D’Angelo. 42

U.S.C. § 12102(2)(A). D’Angelo says that her vertigo condition substantially
As we noted recently in Carruthers:

4

The Supreme Court more recently has expressed its reluctance to treat impairment

of one’s ability to work as an ADA disability. See Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc.

v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184, 200, 122 S. Ct. 681, 692, 151 L. Ed. 2d 615 (2002)

(“Because of the conceptual difficulties inherent in the argument that working

could be a major life activity, we have been hesitant to hold as much, and we need

not decide this difficult question today.”). Previously, however, this circuit has,

following the ADA regulations and Sutton’s [below]-quoted language, treated the

activity of working as a major life activity. See, e.g., Cash v. Smith, 231 F.3d

1301, 1306 ([11th Cir. ]2000); Gordon v. E.L. Hamm & Assocs., Inc., 100 F.3d

907, 911-12 (11th Cir. 1996). In the absence of a more explicit directive from the

Supreme Court, we do not revisit that conclusion here.

Carruthers, 357 F.3d at 1216 n.2.

14

impairs her ability to work, which we have consistently treated as a major life

activity. See, e.g., Carruthers v. BSA Adver., Inc., 357 F.3d 1213, 1216 & n.2

(11th Cir. 2004). The problem is that she has not shown a genuine issue of 4

material fact as to whether her vertigo substantially limits her ability to work. 

The Supreme Court has explained that “[w]hen the major life activity under

consideration is that of working, the statutory phrase ‘substantially limits’ requires,

at a minimum, that plaintiffs allege they are unable to work in a broad class of

jobs.” Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 491, 119 S. Ct. 2139, 144 L.

Ed. 2d 450 (1999). Indeed, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

(EEOC) regulations interpreting the ADA make it abundantly clear that an

individual’s ability to work is “substantially limited” when the individual is

“significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad
15

range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having

comparable training, skills and abilities. The inability to perform a single,

particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity

of working.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i). 

D’Angelo has argued, however, only that her vertigo interferes with her

ability to work as a product transporter at Singleton’s seafood plant, not that she is

restricted in her ability to perform “a class of jobs” or “a broad range of jobs in

various classes.” Moreover, as the district court observed:

[D’Angelo] performed satisfactorily while employed with Defendant

for three years. Her performance as a spreader and stacker earned her

two promotions. The fact that she never felt the need to take

medication which was prescribed to control or minimize her vertigo

symptoms indicates that she managed her vertigo symptoms

adequately. Additionally, while she occasionally experienced diziness

at work, during the entire period of time she worked at Singleton, she

never experienced “full-blown vertigo where things were spinning

around in circles.” Plaintiff’s proven ability to work contradicts any

contention that she was substantially limited in the major life activity

of working.

Order at 8-9 (citations omitted). 

In addition, D’Angelo herself has argued -- in the context of her regarded-as

claim -- that Singleton’s belief she was disabled was mistaken. See, e.g.,

Opposition to Summary Judgment Motion, at 13 (“Defendant mistakenly believed

that Plaintiff had a substantially limiting impairment, when in fact she did not.”).
16

We therefore affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment for

ConAgra on D’Angelo’s actual-impairment claim.

C.

We turn next to D’Angelo’s argument that she has a disability within the

meaning of § 12102(2)(C) -- “being regarded as having such an impairment.” The

EEOC regulations interpreting the ADA have explained that to be “regarded as

having such an impairment” means that an individual:

(1) Has a physical or mental impairment that does not substantially

limit major life activities but is treated by a covered entity as

constituting such limitation;

(2) Has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits

major life activities only as a result of the attitudes of others

toward such impairment; or

(3) Has none of the impairments defined in paragraph (h) (1) or (2)

of this section but is treated by a covered entity as having a

substantially limiting impairment.

29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(l). D’Angelo argues that she qualifies under the first category:

she has a physical impairment -- her vertigo condition -- that does not substantially

limit her in the major life activity of working, but that was treated by her employer

as though it did constitute such a limitation. 

The Supreme Court has explained that “a person is ‘regarded as’ disabled

within the meaning of the ADA if a covered entity mistakenly believes that the
ConAgra argues in its brief that it did not in fact regard D’Angelo as disabled. Because

5

the district court entered judgment entirely in ConAgra’s favor in spite of finding a genuine issue

of material fact on this issue, ConAgra had no basis for a cross-appeal. See, e.g., RTC Transp.,

Inc. v. Conagra Poultry Co., 971 F.2d 368, 374 (9th Cir. 1992) (“A party cannot appeal a

judgment entirely in its favor. It may, however, advance additional arguments in support of the

judgment in its answering brief.”); Byron v. Clay, 867 F.2d 1049, 1051 (7th Cir. 1989) (“A

cross-appeal is an appeal, and is therefore in order only when a party wants to change (even if

only conditionally) the trial court’s judgment.”). However, ConAgra is free to raise this

argument as an additional ground for affirming the district court’s judgment in its favor, since

we may affirm the district court’s judgment “on any ground that finds support in the record.”

Lucas, 257 F.3d at 1256 (quoting Jaffke v. Dunham, 352 U.S. 280, 281, 77 S. Ct. 307, 1 L. Ed.

2d 314 (1957)); see also, e.g., Trs. of Atlanta Iron Workers v. S. Stress Wire Corp., 724 F.2d

1458, 1459 (11th Cir. 1983) (“Absent a cross-appeal, an appellee may not attempt to enlarge his

own rights or decrease the rights of his adversary; however, he may advance a matter in the

record which is in support of the district court’s order, including arguments previously rejected

by the district court.”). 

Nevertheless, we agree with the district court that D’Angelo has presented sufficient

evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether she was regarded by her

17

person’s actual, nonlimiting impairment substantially limits one or more major life

activities.” Murphy v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 527 U.S. 516, 521-22, 119 S. Ct.

2133, 144 L. Ed. 2d 484 (1999); see also Hillburn v. Murata Elecs. N. Am., 181

F.3d 1220, 1230 (11th Cir. 1999) (“As with actual disabilities, a perceived

impairment must be believed to substantially limit a major life activity of the

individual.”). Thus, “[a]n employer runs afoul of the ADA when it makes an

employment decision based on a physical or mental impairment, real or imagined,

that is regarded as substantially limiting a major life activity.” Sutton, 527 U.S. at

490. 

The district court found a genuine issue of material fact as to whether

Singleton regarded D’Angelo as disabled, but nevertheless determined that 5
employer as disabled. D’Angelo claims only to be limited in her ability to work directly on a

conveyor belt for prolonged periods of time, but Cordy and Yates both testified that they

regarded D’Angelo’s impairment as substantially more limiting. Cordy stated that he read Dr.

Heng’s note explaining D’Angelo’s condition to mean that D’Angelo “can’t be around moving

equipment because she has vertigo and may fall and hurt herself.” Cordy then reiterated that he

“knew [D’Angelo’s condition] was going to be a problem,” because Dr. Heng’s letter “said she

had vertigo and that she shouldn’t be around moving equipment.” When asked whether it was

his understanding that if D’Angelo “just happened to be in the same room as a moving belt she

might get dizzy and fall,” Cordy replied in the affirmative. He also clarified that he believed this

limitation to apply not only to conveyor belts, but to “all moving equipment.” 

In addition, Cordy testified that he believed D’Angelo’s condition would prevent her

from holding any of the eleven night-shift jobs at Singleton, “[b]ecause [in] every one of those

positions there’s moving equipment.” He also stated that he believed D’Angelo was unable to

work in any position in the fish division, which, he agreed, had “a wide range of jobs.” At

Yates’ request, Cordy considered “each of the positions” at Singleton, and concluded that he

“didn’t think it was possible for [D’Angelo] to work safely in the plant.”

Yates also testified that Dr. Heng’s note “said something to the effect that Ms. D’Angelo

could not work around moving equipment because she could get dizzy and injure herself.” Thus,

he explained, “Mr. Cordy and I reviewed the jobs that we have. Every job involves working

around moving equipment.” Yates interpreted moving equipment, he stated, “to mean

conveyors, forklifts, could even be pallet jacks, could be anything.”

This case thus stands in sharp contrast with the Supreme Court’s decision in Murphy, in

which it found no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the plaintiff’s employer regarded

him as disabled. The Court explained:

[I]n light of petitioner’s skills and the array of jobs available to petitioner utilizing

those skills, petitioner has failed to show that he is regarded as unable to perform

a class of jobs. Rather, the undisputed record evidence demonstrates that

petitioner is, at most, regarded as unable to perform only a particular job. This is

insufficient, as a matter of law, to prove that petitioner is regarded as substantially

limited in the major life activity of working. 

Murphy, 527 U.S. at 525. 

D’Angelo, however, was regarded as unable to perform any job that would place her in

the vicinity of any moving equipment, and thus her employer could not find a single job in the

Singleton plant that it believed she could perform. Such a far-reaching impairment -- which

would disqualify her from the entire class of factory jobs, and from many others -- would

substantially limit D’Angelo’s ability to work. Thus, the district court rightly found a genuine

issue of material fact as to whether D’Angelo was regarded as disabled.

18

D’Angelo was not entitled to a reasonable accommodation for two reasons: first,
19

because she was not a “qualified individual”; and second, because the ADA

mandates accommodations only for employees who are disabled in the actualimpairment sense. We consider each in turn.

1.

The ADA prohibits employment discrimination against a “qualified

individual with a disability,” defined as an “individual with a disability who, with

or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the

employment position that such individual holds or desires.” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8). 

Accordingly, an ADA plaintiff “must show either that he can perform the essential

functions of his job without accommodation, or, failing that, show that he can

perform the essential functions of his job with a reasonable accommodation.” 

Davis, 205 F.3d at 1305. If the individual “is unable to perform an essential

function of his . . . job, even with an accommodation, he is, by definition, not a

‘qualified individual’ and, therefore, not covered under the ADA. In other words,

the ADA does not require [the employer] to eliminate an essential function of [the

plaintiff’s] job.” Id. (citation omitted).

The district court found as a matter of law that D’Angelo was not a qualified

individual since working on a conveyor belt was an essential function of her

product transporter position, which she was unable to perform even with a
20

reasonable accommodation. After thoroughly reviewing this record, we disagree,

and conclude that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether working on

a conveyor belt was an essential function of the product transporter job.

The ADA’s implementing regulations provide that “[t]he term essential

functions means the fundamental job duties of the employment position the

individual with a disability holds or desires,” and “does not include the marginal

functions of the position.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(1). “Whether a function is

essential is evaluated on a case-by-case basis by examining a number of factors.” 

Davis, 205 F.3d at 1305. In making this determination, the statute provides,

“consideration shall be given to the employer’s judgment as to what functions of a

job are essential, and if an employer has prepared a written description before

advertising or interviewing applicants for the job, this description shall be

considered evidence of the essential functions of the job.” 42 U.S.C. § 12111(8);

see also Holbrook v. City of Alpharetta, 112 F.3d 1522, 1526 (11th Cir. 1997). 

“The ADA regulations provide that other factors to consider are: (1) the amount of

time spent on the job performing the function, (2) the consequences of not

requiring the incumbent to perform the function, (3) the terms of the collective

bargaining agreement, (4) the work experience of past incumbents in the job, and

(5) the current work experience of incumbents in similar jobs.” Davis, 205 F.3d at
21

1305 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(3)).

These regulations also identify three (nonexclusive) bases on which a job

function may be deemed essential: “(1) the reason the position exists is to perform

the function; (2) there are a limited number of employees available among whom

the performance of the job function can be distributed; and (3) the function is

highly specialized so that the incumbent in the position was hired for his or her

expertise or ability to perform the particular function.” Holbrook, 112 F.3d at

1526 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(2) (1996)).

Notably, the first enumerated factor -- the employer’s assessment -- at least

arguably suggests that working on a conveyor belt is not an essential function of

the product transporter job. To begin with, the testimony of D’Angelo’s

supervisors at Singleton is at best inconclusive on this point. 

Mark Richard Yates, Singleton’s Vice President of Human Resources, and

Thomas Michael Cordy, the plant manager at Singleton, both testified about the

nature of the product transporter position without mentioning conveyor belt work

as an essential function of that job. Yates, in response to the question, “What are

the essential functions of [the product transporter] position?” stated:

One of the essential functions would be able to move product from

one end of the line to another in and out of freezers, stacking pallets,

be working around moving equipment. Pretty much -- I think that’s

pretty much it.
22

Cordy explained the essence of the job in these terms: 

Product transporter in the strictest sense operates an electric pallet

jack or a hand jack to move product. And in the fish division it also

meant they could be a case opener, opening cases at the beginning of

the fry line or working the block press.

Cordy also listed a number of other functions a product transporter might be asked

to perform, including operating the box-former machine, stacking product, opening

bags, and “dump[ing] product on conveyor belts.” 

Joanne Scott Brister, D’Angelo’s supervisor in the shrimp division,

unambiguously said that as a product transporter, D’Angelo “wouldn’t work on a

conveyor belt.” Her exchange with D’Angelo’s counsel went as follows:

Q. Would you say that as a product transporter [D’Angelo] would

rarely work on a conveyor belt?

A. Right, yes.

Q. Maybe not at all?

A. No, she wouldn’t work on a conveyor belt.

Brister further clarified that the position of product transporter “does not require

you to work on a belt.” The exchange with D’Angelo’s counsel went like this:

Q. So as a product transporter for the fish division Miss D’Angelo

wouldn’t be working on conveyor belts for any significant period of

time, correct?

[Objection by defense counsel.]
23

A. No.

Q. Okay. In fact, that wouldn’t even be one of her requirements as a

product transporter, correct? 

[Objection by defense counsel.]

A. Correct.

Q. Okay. So when you’re looking at the functions of the job for

product transporter it does not include working on a conveyor belt,

correct?

[Objection by defense counsel.]

A. No, it does not require you to work on a belt.

Moreover, Singleton’s written descriptions of the position -- which we are

statutorily bound to consider as evidence of whether a job function is essential --

also suggest that working on a conveyor belt may not be an essential function of

the product transporter position. At her deposition, D’Angelo introduced, among

other exhibits, a handwritten note copying into a notebook a written job description

of the product transporter position that she had seen posted on a company bulletin

board. The note reads:

“Product Transporter”

1. Must Be Able to operate handjack/power jack

2. English

3. Must be able to lift 50 lbs

Duties:

transport product from dept to freezers

misc.
24

Nothing in this description even mentions working on a conveyor belt, let alone

characterizes it as an essential function of the product transporter job.

In addition, D’Angelo introduced into the summary judgment record a

document entitled, “Job Safety Analysis” for the product transporter position,

which D’Angelo and her supervisor signed and dated May 9, 2001. The document

lists various functions of the transporter job, the safety hazards they pose, and

methods of avoiding these hazards. The job functions listed are these:

Working in production areas

Working in wet slippery conditions

Work in freezers

Operate powered stacker

Working around running equipment

Remove empty pallets from line

Shrink wrap full pallets

Transport pallets to ACS

Working in warehouse

Work near ammonia & nitrogen refrigerant

Work around hot oil, thermal fluid

Again, this document in no way indicates that working on a conveyor belt is an

essential function of the product transporter job. No other written job description

was ever offered by the employer. Thus, application of the first factor in our

analysis -- the employer’s own assessment -- suggests the existence of a genuine

issue of material fact about whether conveyor belt work was an essential function

of the product transporter job.
25

The next factor -- the amount of time D’Angelo spent working on a

conveyor belt during her tenure as a product transporter -- further raises a genuine

issue of material fact. D’Angelo’s description of her experience working as a

product transporter indicates that working on a conveyor belt was at most an

occasional function of her job. Regarding her duties as a product transporter in the

shrimp division, D’Angelo stated:

According to the [product transporter] job description, you

transport product using a pallet jack. And so what I did a lot was

stand near a chute where the shrimp comes out when the machine gets

messed up, and the shrimp is coming out backwards and it falls into a

box. And when the box is filled up, I move another box under there

and fill that one up.

And then those boxes would get stacked on a pallet by me, and

I would either pull them away with a jack or a forklift driver would

get in there and pull them away.

D’Angelo acknowledged that, in addition to this primary function, she sometimes

performed other tasks including transporting boxes of shrimp on her shoulders;

working as a stacker; working as a packer; and making boxes.

When D’Angelo transferred to Singleton’s fish division, she continued to

work as a product transporter. After her transfer, her new supervisor asked her,

“What do you do over there? What can you do?” to which she replied, “Well, I’m

a product transporter. I can do anything except work over the spreader belt

because when I stand there staring at it for any period of time, I start getting sick
26

and dizzy.” Her supervisor said, “Okay,” and asked her, “Can you go up in the

triangle? Are you afraid of heights?” to which D’Angelo replied, “No, I’ve got no

problem with that.” 

D’Angelo testified that her responsibilities as a transporter in the fish

division differed from those of her transporter position in the shrimp division. She

said: “[I]t wasn’t the same as the shrimp department where the machines would

back up and dump out shrimp and need somebody monitoring that constantly. So

there wasn’t the need for the same type of work. The machines were functioning

better in the fish department.” D’Angelo described her typical responsibilities in

the fish department in these terms: “[M]y title was product transporter. Sometimes

I stacked. Sometimes I pulled the pallets away with a jack. Sometimes I packed. 

Sometimes I went up in the triangle . . . when the fish was coming down, just kind

of [to] make sure it doesn’t clog up the machine.” On occasion, D’Angelo also

weighed product, unloaded boxes of fish, and dumped fish into a grinder. 

Indeed, the record before us reveals only one time during the year and a half

D’Angelo worked as a product transporter that she was assigned to work on a

conveyor belt. D’Angelo was promoted to the transporter position in March 2000,

and was apparently not asked to work on a conveyor belt until shortly before she

was fired some eighteen months later in September 2001, when a new supervisor
27

took over in the fish division. D’Angelo’s deposition testimony mentions no other

instance in which she was asked to work on a belt, and ConAgra has offered no

evidence to the contrary. In the absence of any indication that D’Angelo worked

on a conveyor belt more than once during her product transporter tenure, the

second factor in our analysis -- the amount of time D’Angelo spent performing that

function -- also arguably weighs against finding it to be essential as a matter of

law.

The third factor in our analysis -- the consequences of not requiring the

employee to perform the disputed function -- cuts both ways. ConAgra says that

the consequences of exempting D’Angelo from conveyor belt work would be

serious, since maintaining the flexibility to move employees around the factory

floor to perform different functions tasks is vital to the efficient operation of the

plant. Both Cordy and Yates testified that Singleton employees are “regularly”

moved around in this fashion. While the employer’s view is entitled to substantial

weight in the calculus, on this record we are not persuaded that this factor

conclusively tips the balance in favor of final summary judgment. 

For one thing, all Singleton employees are qualified to work on a conveyor

belt. It is not a specialized function, and indeed, D’Angelo testified that all

employees are required to start at the entry-level position of spreader, working over
28

the spreader belt separating product. Since employees are eligible to work in any

job at or below the level of their primary position, all can work on a conveyor belt. 

Thus, virtually any employee in the plant apparently could fill in on the belt as

needed, minimizing any consequences of D’Angelo’s inability to work on the belt. 

In addition, while D’Angelo’s testimony confirms that she performed a

variety of different tasks with regularity as product transporter, working on a

conveyor belt was not one of them. She held the product transporter position from

March 2000 until September 2001 without ever being asked to work on the

conveyor belt, suggesting that her difficulty working on a conveyor belt may have

been of little, if any, consequence to her employer. 

The remaining factors in our essential-function analysis are inapplicable

here. The collective bargaining agreement says nothing about the functions of the

product transporter position, and the record contains no evidence regarding the

work experience of either past product transporters (other than D’Angelo) or

incumbents in similar jobs. Moreover, none of the circumstances we have

previously identified as bases on which a job function may be deemed essential --

circumstances the district court did not acknowledge -- is found here. The federal

regulations implementing the ADA establish -- and our case law affirms -- that “[a]

job function may be considered essential for any of several reasons, including but
29

not limited to the following”: (1) “the reason the position exists is to perform that

function”; (2) there are a “limited number of employees available among whom the

performance of that job function can be distributed”; or (3) the function is “highly

specialized so that the incumbent in the position is hired for his or her expertise or

ability to perform the particular function.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(n)(2); see also, e.g.,

Holbrook, 112 F.3d at 1526.

As to the first possibility, it is undisputed that the position of product

transporter does not exist to perform the function of working on a conveyor belt. 

The job description and the testimony of Cordy, Yates, and D’Angelo suggest that

the primary function of the product transporter position is to move product around

the plant using a jack. On this record, working on the conveyor belt at least

arguably appears to be no more than a secondary responsibility. 

As to the second possibility, the record reveals no shortage of employees

among whom conveyor belt work could be distributed. According to Cordy’s

testimony, approximately 300 people work in the Singleton plant, including 19 to

20 on the night shift in the fish division -- the shift D’Angelo worked at the time

she was fired. All Singleton employees are required to start in the spreader

position, and thus all of these individuals are qualified to work on the conveyor

belt. As to the third possibility, working on the conveyor belt is not a specialized
ConAgra also seems to argue more broadly that D’Angelo is not a qualified individual 6

because she is unable to perform the undisputedly essential job function of working around

moving equipment such as conveyor belts. ConAgra takes Dr. Heng’s note -- which says that

D’Angelo’s vertigo “affects her when her eyes have to look at moving objects such as belts,” and

thus “[s]he should avoid this situation since it could cause her to fall and sustain injury” -- to

mean that D’Angelo cannot work even in the vicinity of moving objects. Because there are

undoubtedly many such objects on the floor of the Singleton plant, ConAgra argues, D’Angelo is

unqualified to work there as a product transporter.

However, even under ConAgra’s broader formulation of the function at issue in this case,

summary judgment is inappropriate on this point, since substantial record evidence indicates that

D’Angelo could work around moving equipment, and was limited only in her ability to work

directly on a conveyor belt. 

D’Angelo testified that her only difficulty was with tasks that required her to stare

directly at a conveyor belt for prolonged periods; accordingly, the only accommodation she

sought from ConAgra was an exemption from working on the spreader belt (separating shrimp as

they travel down the line) and on the box-former belt (watching boxes travel down the line to see

if they are properly formed). As D’Angelo explained in her deposition, she only became sick

when she had to stare at a conveyor belt “[c]ontinuously without a break,” and that “[i]f it’s a

belt where you’re not staring at it continuously, you’re looking away sometimes, . . . that’s not a

30

function, but rather entry-level work requiring no particular expertise. As

D’Angelo testified, all Singleton employees start on the spreader belt and may bid

on other jobs only after acquiring some seniority at the plant.

Thus, applying the factors we have previously identified does not point

decisively to the conclusion that, as a matter of law, working on the conveyor belt

is an essential function of the product transporter position. While this may truly be

an essential function -- and the employer’s judgment on the matter is entitled to

substantial weight -- on this record we see a genuine issue of material fact, and

accordingly reverse the district court’s grant of final summary judgment for

ConAgra on this question.6
problem. Or if it’s moving near me but I’m not monitoring it, that’s not a problem.” 

Dr. Heng, in a note written in January 2002, also confirmed that D’Angelo “is able to

work around mechanized equipment, but is unable to work at a conveyor belt for a long period of

time due to vertigo” (emphasis added). Indeed, it is undisputed that in spite of the fact that the

factory floor was an elaborate maze of conveyor belts and other mechanized equipment,

D’Angelo was able to perform her work satisfactorily during three years of employment at

Singleton, and even received two promotions. 

D’Angelo’s own testimony and her prior job performance at Singleton create a genuine

issue of material fact as to whether D’Angelo was able to perform the essential function of

working around moving equipment, rendering summary judgment inappropriate on this point. 

31

2.

In disposing of D’Angelo’s claim that she was “regarded as” disabled, the

district court held also that an individual like D’Angelo, who does not actually

suffer from a disabling impairment, but rather is disabled only in the “regarded as”

sense, is not entitled to a reasonable accommodation under the ADA. Thus, the

district court reasoned, because D’Angelo could not perform her job as a

transporter at Singleton without an accommodation -- namely, an exemption from

working on the spreader and box-former belts -- she had no claim under the ADA. 

Whether the ADA’s reasonable accommodation requirement applies to the

regarded-as category of disabled individuals is an issue of first impression in this

Circuit and a question on which our sister Circuits are split. The district court

based its holding that it does not on the decisions of the Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and

Ninth Circuits. See Kaplan v. N. Las Vegas, 323 F.3d 1226, 1233 (9th Cir. 2003);

Weber v. Strippit, Inc., 186 F.3d 907, 916-17 (8th Cir. 1999); Workman v. Frito-
32

Lay, Inc., 165 F.3d 460, 467 (6th Cir. 1999); Newberry v. E. Tex. State Univ., 161

F.3d 276, 280 (5th Cir. 1998). The Third Circuit has parted ways with these

courts, holding that under the plain language of the ADA, employers are obliged to

provide reasonable accommodations for individuals falling within any of the

ADA’s definitions of disabled, including those “regarded as” being disabled. 

Williams v. Phila. Hous. Auth. Police Dep’t, 380 F.3d 751, 772-76 (3d Cir. 2004). 

The First Circuit has also addressed the issue but only indirectly, assuming without

expressly holding that the ADA requires reasonable accommodations for

employees regarded as disabled. Katz v. City Metal Co., 87 F.3d 26, 32-34 (1st

Cir. 1996). 

Because a review of the plain language of the ADA yields no statutory basis

for distinguishing among individuals who are disabled in the actual-impairment

sense and those who are disabled only in the regarded-as sense, we join the Third

Circuit in holding that regarded-as disabled individuals also are entitled to

reasonable accommodations under the ADA. 

In interpreting a statute, it is by now axiomatic that our first step “is to

determine whether the language at issue has a plain and unambiguous meaning

with regard to the particular dispute in the case.” Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519

U.S. 337, 340, 117 S. Ct. 843, 136 L. Ed. 2d 808 (1997); see also, e.g., Country
33

Best v. Christopher Ranch, LLC, 361 F.3d 629, 632 (11th Cir. 2004). We

therefore turn to the text.

Again, the ADA bars employment discrimination “against a qualified

individual with a disability” on the basis of such disability. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). 

A “qualified individual with a disability” “means an individual with a disability

who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential

functions of the employment position that such individual holds or desires.” Id. §

12111(8). Accordingly, reading the prohibition and the definition together, the

ADA bars discrimination “against an individual with a disability who, with or

without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the

employment position . . . .”

A “disability,” in turn, is defined by the statute as either “a physical or

mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities

of such individual,” or “a record of such an impairment,” or “being regarded as

having such an impairment.” Id. § 12102(2)(A)-(C) (emphasis added). Inserting

this definition into the statute’s prohibition, the ADA can only be read as barring

discrimination “against an individual with a physical or mental impairment that

substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual who, with

or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the
34

employment position,” and as barring discrimination “against an individual with a

record of such an impairment who, with or without reasonable accommodation,

can perform the essential functions of the employment position,” and, finally, as

barring discrimination “against an individual regarded as having such an

impairment who, with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the

essential functions of the employment position.” In other words, the statute’s

prohibition on discrimination applies equally to all statutorily defined disabilities. 

Moreover, “discrimination” includes “not making reasonable

accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise

qualified individual with a disability.” Id. § 12112(b). The ADA prohibits

discrimination “against a qualified individual with a disability.” Accordingly, the

statute plainly prohibits “not making reasonable accommodations” for any

qualified individual with a disability, including one who is disabled in the

regarded-as sense no less than one who is disabled in the actual-impairment or the

record-of-such-an-impairment sense. 

The text of this statute simply offers no basis for differentiating among the

three types of disabilities in determining which are entitled to a reasonable

accommodation and which are not. Accord Williams, 380 F.3d at 774 (“[A]s all

would agree, the statutory text of the ADA does not in any way distinguish
35

between actually disabled and ‘regarded as’ individuals in requiring

accommodation.” (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted)). Cf. US

Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391, 398, 122 S. Ct. 1516, 152 L. Ed. 2d 589

(2002) (holding that “the [ADA]’s silence about the exempting effect of neutral

rules” favored finding no exemption from reasonable accommodation requirement

even when accommodations interfered with employer’s neutral seniority system). 

Thus, the ADA’s plain language -- which treats an individual who is disabled in

the actual-impairment sense identically to an individual who is disabled in the

regarded-as sense -- compels us to conclude that the very terms of the statute

require employers to provide reasonable accommodations for individuals it regards

as disabled. 

It bears noting that this straightforward reading of the ADA is altogether

consistent with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of a nearly identical provision

of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., in School Board of

Nassau County v. Arline, 480 U.S. 273, 107 S. Ct. 1123, 94 L. Ed. 2d 307 (1987). 

In Arline, the Court considered the claim of a school teacher afflicted with

tuberculosis who argued that she had been fired because her employer regarded her

as handicapped, in violation of the Rehabilitation Act’s prohibition on excluding

otherwise-qualified handicapped individuals from participation in federally funded
36

state programs. The Act’s definition of “handicapped individual,” then codified at

29 U.S.C. § 706(7)(B), included “any person who (i) has a physical or mental

impairment which substantially limits one or more of such person’s major life

activities, (ii) has a record of such an impairment, or (iii) is regarded as having

such an impairment.”

Finding the teacher to be a handicapped individual within the Act’s

“regarded as” definition, the Court remanded for the district court to determine

“whether the school board could have reasonably accommodated her,” since

“[e]mployers have an affirmative obligation to make a reasonable accommodation

for a handicapped employee.” Arline, 480 U.S. at 288-89 & n.19. 

The Court explained the rationale for the regarded-as definition in these

terms: 

By amending the definition of “handicapped individual” to include

not only those who are actually physically impaired, but also those

who are regarded as impaired and who, as a result, are substantially

limited in a major life activity, Congress acknowledged that society’s

accumulated myths and fears about disability and disease are as

handicapping as are the physical limitations that flow from actual

impairment. . . . The Act is carefully structured to replace such

reflexive reactions to actual or perceived handicaps with actions based

on reasoned and medically sound judgments: the definition of

“handicapped individual” is broad, but only those individuals who are

both handicapped and otherwise qualified are eligible for relief. 

Id. at 284-85. Excluding individuals regarded as disabled from the coverage of the
37

Rehabilitation Act, the Court reasoned, would leave them “vulnerable to

discrimination on the basis of mythology -- precisely the type of injury Congress

sought to prevent.” Id. at 285.

We agree with the Third Circuit that in light of Arline and the Supreme

Court’s subsequent decision in Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624, 118 S. Ct. 2196,

141 L. Ed. 2d 540 (1998), “the conclusion seems inescapable that ‘regarded as’

employees under the ADA are entitled to reasonable accommodation in the same

way as are those who are actually disabled.” Williams, 380 F.3d at 775 In

Bragdon, the Court explained:

 The ADA’s definition of disability is drawn almost verbatim

from the definition of “handicapped individual” included in the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 . . . . Congress’ repetition of a

well-established term carries the implication that Congress intended

the term to be construed in accordance with pre-existing regulatory

interpretations. In this case, Congress did more than suggest this

construction; it adopted a specific statutory provision in the ADA

directing as follows: “Except as otherwise provided in this chapter,

nothing in this chapter shall be construed to apply a lesser standard

than the standards applied under title V of the Rehabilitation Act of

1973 (29 U.S.C. § 790 et seq.) or the regulations issued by Federal

agencies pursuant to such title.” 42 U.S.C. § 12201(a). The directive

requires us to construe the ADA to grant at least as much protection as

provided by the regulations implementing the Rehabilitation Act.

Id. at 631-32 (citations omitted). 

Moreover, the ADA’s legislative history expressly states that “[t]he ADA

incorporates many of the standards of discrimination set out in regulations
38

implementing section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, including the

obligation to provide reasonable accommodations unless it would result in an

undue hardship on the operation of the business.” S. Rep. No. 101-116, at 2

(1989); see also id. at 31 (“The duty to make reasonable accommodations applies

to all employment decisions, not simply hiring and promotion decisions. This duty

has been included as a form of non-discrimination on the basis of disability for

almost fifteen years under section 501 and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of

1973 and under the nondiscrimination section of the regulations implementing

section 503 of that Act.”). 

Since the Rehabilitation Act required employers to accommodate employees

who were disabled in the regarded-as sense, we can find no principled basis for

concluding that the more expansive ADA does not. At all events, the plain

language of the ADA yields this conclusion.

The Circuits reaching the opposite conclusion have reasoned that requiring

employers to accommodate individuals they merely regard as disabled would

produce anomalous results that Congress could not have intended. As the Eighth

Circuit put it, providing accommodations to impaired individuals who are

“regarded as” disabled would “create a disparity in treatment among impaired but

non-disabled employees, denying most the right to reasonable accommodations but
39

granting to others, because of their employers’ misperceptions, a right to

reasonable accommodations no more limited than those afforded actually disabled

employees.” Weber, 186 F.3d at 917; see also Kaplan, 323 F.3d at 1232. 

This rationale, we think, ignores the vital principle that “[c]ourts are not

authorized to rewrite a statute because they might deem its effects susceptible of

improvement.” Jove Eng’g, Inc. v. IRS, 92 F.3d 1539, 1552 (11th Cir. 1996)

(quoting Badaracco v. C.I.R., 464 U.S. 386, 104 S. Ct. 756, 78 L. Ed. 2d 549

(1984)). As the Supreme Court explained in Tennessee Valley Authority v. Hill,

437 U.S. 153, 98 S. Ct. 2279, 57 L. Ed. 2d 117 (1978):

Our individual appraisal of the wisdom or unwisdom of a particular

course consciously selected by the Congress is to be put aside in the

process of interpreting a statute. Once the meaning of an enactment is

discerned and its constitutionality determined, the judicial process

comes to an end. We do not sit as a committee of review, nor are we

vested with the power of veto. . . . [I]n our constitutional system the

commitment to the separation of powers is too fundamental for us to

pre-empt congressional action by judicially decreeing what accords

with “common sense and the public weal.” Our Constitution vests

such responsibilities in the political branches. 

Id. at 194-95; see also Country Best v. Christopher Ranch, LLC, 361 F.3d 629, 632

(11th Cir. 2004) (“We presume ‘that Congress said what it meant and meant what

it said.’” (quoting United States v. Steele, 147 F.3d 1316, 1318 (11th Cir. 1998))).

Thus, as a court, we are not free to question the efficacy of legislation that

Congress validly enacted. Within constitutional limits, Congress may
40

“improvidently” elect to legislate what the Ninth Circuit has characterized as a

“windfall” for employees regarded as disabled, or may “compel employers to

waste resources” that, in our sister Circuit’s judgment, “would be better spent

assisting those persons who are actually disabled.” Kaplan, 323 F.3d at 1232. We

do not think that these judgements and the complex legislative calibrations that

underlie them are for us to make. Quite simply, we are without authority to pass

judgment on the wisdom of a congressional enactment.

The Ninth Circuit, in reaching the opposite conclusion, reasoned: “The

absence of a stated distinction [between the three alternative prongs of the

‘disability’ definition] . . . is not tantamount to an explicit instruction by Congress

that ‘regarded as’ individuals are entitled to reasonable accommodations.” Kaplan,

323 F.3d at 1232. We disagree. To say that the statute contains no such “explicit

instruction” from Congress simply because it is necessary to plug the statutory

definitions into the statute’s substantive prohibition on discrimination in order to

understand the precise contours of Congress’ directive wholly disregards the plain

meaning of the statute’s language.

Moreover, because we could craft a hypothetical that produces a result we

might find anomalous is insufficient reason for disregarding the terms of the

statute. The Supreme Court has admonished that “[t]he plain meaning of
41

legislation should be conclusive, except in the ‘rare cases [in which] the literal

application of a statute will produce a result demonstrably at odds with the

intentions of its drafters.’” United States v. Ron Pair Enters., Inc., 489 U.S. 235,

242, 109 S. Ct. 1026, 103 L. Ed. 2d 290 (1989) (alteration in original) (quoting

Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc., 458 U.S. 564, 571, 102 S. Ct. 3245, 3250, 73

L. Ed. 2d 973 (1982)); see also Shotz v. City of Plantation, 344 F.3d 1161, 1167

(11th Cir. 2003) (“[C]ourts may reach results inconsistent with the plain meaning

of a statute [only] ‘if giving the words of a statute their plain and ordinary meaning

produces a result that is not just unwise but is clearly absurd.’” (alterations in

original) (quoting CBS Inc. v. Prime Time 24 Joint Venture, 245 F.3d 1217, 1228

(11th Cir. 2001))). 

This is decidedly not one of those rare cases. For one thing, the ADA’s

language is unambiguous, and none of the courts to depart from its plain meaning

have pointed to anything -- congressional findings, legislative history, or other

materials -- suggesting that the so-called “bizarre” results yielded by a faithful

reading of the ADA are contrary to Congress’ plainly expressed intent. 

We also question whether the results may be as “bizarre” as our sister

Circuits make them out to be, for two reasons. First, the notion that a literal

reading will produce a disparity “among impaired but non-disabled employees,”
42

Weber, 186 F.3d at 917, fails to appreciate that the ADA defines individuals with

impairments that do not substantially limit their ability to perform a major life

activity, but that are nonetheless treated by the individual’s employer as

constituting such a limitation, as disabled. The so-called “regarded as” plaintiffs

are not “impaired but non-disabled” individuals, but rather are disabled within the

meaning of the statute. 

Second, insofar as the ADA will sometimes entitle one employee with a

particular impairment to an accommodation while not entitling another with the

same impairment to the same accommodation, it is because these individuals are

not similarly situated: the employee entitled to statutory protection will have

suffered some wrongful adverse employment action that the other employee has

not. As one court has put it, “an employee who is simply impaired and an

employee who is impaired and ‘regarded as’ disabled are not similarly situated

since the ‘regarded as’ disabled employee is subject to the stigma of the disabling

and discriminatory attitudes of others.” Jacques v. DiMarzio, Inc., 200 F. Supp. 2d

151, 170 (E.D.N.Y. 2002). Thus, “[t]he employee whose limitations are perceived

accurately gets to work, while [the plaintiff] is sent home unpaid.” Williams, 380

F.3d at 775. Cf. Barnett, 535 U.S. at 398 (holding that the ADA required

accommodation even when it interfered with the employer’s seniority system,
43

reasoning, “[t]he simple fact that an accommodation would provide a ‘preference’

-- in the sense that it would permit the worker with a disability to violate a rule that

others must obey -- cannot, in and of itself, automatically show that the

accommodation is not ‘reasonable’” (emphasis omitted)).

Like the Third Circuit, “[w]hile we do not rule out the possibility that there

may be situations in which applying the reasonable accommodation requirement in

favor of a ‘regarded as’ disabled employee would produce ‘bizarre results,’ we

perceive no basis for an across-the-board refusal to apply the ADA in accordance

with the plain meaning of its text.” Williams, 380 F.3d at 774. Based on the text

of this statute and the absence of any contrary expression of congressional intent,

we hold that an individual falling within the “regarded as” category of disability

under the ADA is entitled to a reasonable accommodation no less than an

individual satisfying the actual-impairment definition of disability.

III.

Because D’Angelo’s vertigo condition does not substantially impair her

ability to perform the major life function of working, we affirm the district court’s

order of final summary judgment for ConAgra on D’Angelo’s actual-impairment

claim. 

As to D’Angelo’s regarded-as claim, we affirm the district court’s
44

conclusion that there is indeed a genuine issue of material fact on the question of

whether ConAgra regarded D’Angelo as substantially impaired in her ability to

work. We also find a genuine issue of material fact as to whether D’Angelo was a

qualified individual able to perform the essential functions of her product

transporter job in spite of her inability to work on a conveyor belt, and therefore

reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment for ConAgra on this

question. Finally, we conclude that the ADA, by its plain language, requires

employers to provide reasonable accommodations for employees they regard as

disabled, and reverse the district court’s contrary holding.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, and REMANDED.
45

FAY, Circuit Judge, dissenting:

Most respectfully, I disagree with the majority’s reading of this record and

dissent. In my opinion, this is not a “regarded as disabled” case. In reality, it is a

failure to communicate case.

As set forth by the majority, Chris D’Angelo suffers from vertigo. No, she is

not disabled under the ADA, but she has a medical condition that is a problem.

While she was working in the “shrimp division” of ConAgra, she talked about her

problems on the conveyor belt, and accommodations were made for her. She was

promoted and unfortunately transferred to the “fish division,” which was under the

supervision of different people. Early in her tenure in the “fish division,”

supervisor Mendoza assigned her to work on a box forming conveyor belt and she

experienced difficulty. When she discussed this difficulty with Mendoza, he

simply asked for some documentation about the condition. In response, she gave

him her prescription for Antivert (which she had never filled) and a note from her

doctor which read:

This patient should not work more than 5 nights a week because of her

medical condition. Also, she has a vertigo condition. This affects her when

her eyes have to look at moving objects such as belts. She should avoid this

situation since it could cause her to fall and sustain injury.

Mendoza passed these along to the Plan Manager, Cordy, who immediately

thought it necessary to discuss the situation with the Vice President of Human
46

Resources, Yates. Cordy and Yates reviewed the note from Dr. Heng and then

toured the plant. Reluctantly, they both agreed that there was literally no area of the

plant where D’Angelo could work and not be around moving equipment,

including, but not limited to, conveyor belts. It was their joint conclusion that she

was simply “unqualified” to work in the plant. This is exactly what they told her in

the September 21, 2001, letter of termination. They also explained that overtime

was essential and that if she could work only five nights a week, then she would be

unable to perform an integral part of her job.

My reading of this record convinces me that it is a simple case of an

employer deciding that it had to terminate an employee because of a medical

condition that made it dangerous for her to work in the plant. Based upon the

doctors note, she was not qualified to work for ConAgra in this facility.

The majority refuses to accept this version of the uncontested facts by

relying upon other facts that are simply irrelevant. The fact that she had worked

there for about three years without being injured changes nothing. The employer

did not know about the risk. Neither D’Angelo nor Dr. Heng had ever advised

those with the authority to evaluate such risks of D’Angelo’s condition. It is

fortunate that she did not experience an attack of vertigo that resulted in injury

during this period. In addition, to rely upon a note from Dr. Heng written in
 It is not hard to know what her lawyers would be arguing had Conagra ignored the 1

doctor’s note, and allowed D’Angelo to continue working, ultimately being injured after an onset

47

January of 2002, as the majority does in footnote 6, is really comparing apples to

oranges. D’Angelo was terminated in September 2001.

Moreover, it’s important to note that three months after her termination,

D’Angelo asked Dr. Heng to write a note clarifying his earlier indication that she

could not be around belts in order to help her in her grievance action against

ConAgra. Although D’Angelo cannot remember whether she gave that note to

anyone at ConAgra, including her union representative, she was clear in the fact

that the note was meant to explain to ConAgra the job functions she could and

could not perform. At no time, however, did D’Angelo ever seek re-employment at

the plant after she had this note. To the contrary, D’Angelo secured other

employment at Target as a shelf stocker on the night shift in June of 2002. This

lawsuit was not filed until September 2002.

As I stated earlier, this is really a case of failure to communicate. If

D’Angelo had told ConAgra of her problem when she first applied, it could have

been explored and clarified. If D’Angelo had obtained a clarifying note from Dr.

Heng before she was terminated, perhaps it could have been resolved. Or, on the

other hand, maybe it really is dangerous for her to work around moving equipment

because she might have an attack and be injured.1
of vertigo.

48

In any event, it seems to me that the summary judgment is fully supported

by this record and the law. Chris D’Angelo is not disabled under the ADA. Chris

D’Angelo was never regarded as disabled by her employer. The authorities at

ConAgra made a sound business decision when they terminated D’Angelo based

upon their opinion that she was not qualified to work in this plant.

Consequently, I would affirm.