Opinion ID: 200809
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Was the Major Life Activity Substantially Limited?

Text: 81 It is a simple matter to find sufficient evidence in the record that Calero's mental impairment did substantially limit a major life activity. Although the federal statutes do not explicitly define the phrase substantially limits, in Sutton the Supreme Court instructed that the phrase suggests `considerable' or `specified to a large degree.' Sutton, 527 U.S. at 491, 119 S.Ct. 2139. Even so, while substantial limitations should be considerable, they also should not be equated with `utter inabilities.' Taylor v. Phoenixville Sch. Dist., 184 F.3d 296, 307 (3d Cir.1999). The Supreme Court has stated that [w]hen significant limitations result from an impairment, the disability definition is met even if the difficulties are not unsurmountable. Bragdon, 524 U.S. at 641, 118 S.Ct. 2196. An impairment can substantially limit a major life activity, even though the plaintiff is still able to engage in the activity to some extent. See Gillen v. Fallon Ambulance Serv., Inc., 283 F.3d 11, 22 (1st Cir.2002). 82 As before, neither the district court nor the appellees here have contested Calero's assertion that her major depression substantially limited one or more of her recognized major life activities. Given this, we must conclude by default that the evidence was sufficient to satisfy the first element of Calero's Rehabilitation Act claim; she did suffer a disability. The next question is whether she was a qualified individual. Was she able to perform the essential functions of her job, with or without an accommodation?