Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 702.0

524US2

Unit: $U96

[09-15-00 14:39:49] PAGES PGT: OPIN

Cite as: 524 U. S. 624 (1998)

657

Opinion of Rehnquist, C. J.

tion whether respondent Abbott’s disease posed “a signiﬁ-
cant risk to the health or safety of [petitioner Bragdon] that
[could not] be eliminated by a modiﬁcation of policies, prac-
tices, or procedures . . . .”

42 U. S. C. § 12182(b)(3).

Chief Justice Rehnquist, with whom Justice Scalia
and Justice Thomas join, and with whom Justice O(cid:146)Con-
nor joins as to Part II, concurring in the judgment in part
and dissenting in part.

I

Is respondent Abbott (hereinafter respondent)—who has
tested positive for the human immunodeﬁciency virus (HIV)
but was asymptomatic at the time she suffered discrimina-
tory treatment—a person with a “disability” as that term
is deﬁned in the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
(ADA)? The term “disability” is deﬁned in the ADA to
include:

“(A) a physical or mental impairment that substan-
tially 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.”

42 U. S. C. § 12102(2).

It is important to note that whether respondent has a dis-
ability covered by the ADA is an individualized inquiry.
The Act could not be clearer on this point: Section 12102(2)
states explicitly that the disability determination must be
made “with respect to an individual.” Were this not sufﬁ-
ciently clear, the Act goes on to provide that the “major life
activities” allegedly limited by an impairment must be those
§ 12102(2)(A).
“of such individual.”

The individualized nature of the inquiry is particularly im-
portant in this case because the District Court disposed of it
on summary judgment. Thus all disputed issues of material
fact must be resolved against respondent. She contends