Opinion ID: 198940
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Regarded as having such an impairment

Text: 38 Santiago additionally contends that she is entitled to relief under the ADA because American Eagle regarded her as having a substantially limiting impairment. EEOC regulations define is regarded as having such an impairment as: 39 (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; 40 (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 41 (3) Has [no physical or mental impairment within the meaning of the regulations] but is treated by a covered entity as having a substantially limiting impairment. 42 29 C.F.R. §§ 1630.2(l). 43 In support of her argument, Santiago points to the following evidence: the company-appointed doctor's diagnosis of a possible fistula and recommendation that she not fly until her condition stabilized; the head of personnel's suggestion that she see a psychologist because she had a problem of adaptation; and her use of a hearing aid. Dr. Murphy's statements do not, however, support a conclusion that Santiago was treated by American Eagle as if she had a substantially limiting impairment. Dr. Murphy simply stated that Santiago may have a fistula, that she may not be able to fly again, and that Santiago should be temporarily removed from flying duties until her condition stabilized. His comments concerned Santiago's ability to fly in light of her symptoms. They did not concern her ability to perform major life activities, i.e., to hear, to speak, or to work in a class or range of jobs as discussed supra. 44 Moreover, the record indicates that the comment about Santiago's problem of adaptation and her use of a hearing aid did not occur until well after she had been transferred to a permanent ground position. As discussed above, the claimed disability must precede or at least be immediately related to the request for accommodation. See note 4, supra. Santiago cannot complain that she was treated by American Eagle as having a substantially limiting impairment after having received the accommodation she sought. 45 In sum, Santiago has not set forth sufficient evidence of the existence of a disability under any of the criteria prescribed by the statute and regulations. Because American Eagle had no legal duty to Santiago under the ADA, we need not consider any of the further issues raised by the parties. 46 Affirmed.