Opinion ID: 811910
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether McElwee is Disabled

Text: The district court found that McElwee was not substantially limited in the major life activity of interacting with others and concluded that McElwee was not disabled. See McElwee, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114663, at . On appeal, McElwee argues that the district court erred by failing to consider the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA), Pub. L. No. 110-325, 122 Stat. 3553 (2008), which amended the ADA to provide that the definition of disability shall be construed broadly to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this chapter an d [t]he term 'substantially limits' shall be interpreted consistently with the findings and purposes of the -19- [ADAAA]. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(4)(A), (B). 5 Similarly, the amici curiae argue that, in light of the ADAAA, the district court erred in concluding that McElwee is not disabled. Both McElwee and amici raise fair concerns as to whether the district court erred in not addressing whether McElwee was substantially limited in the major life activities of working, caring for himself, communicating, thinking, and brain function. See 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2) (providing that major life activities include, but are not limited to caring for oneself, learning, concentrating, thinking, communicating, working, and the operatio n of major bodily functions such as brain function); 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(i) (instructing courts to construe the term substantially limits broadly); id. § 1630.2(j)(3)(iii) (specifically identifying autism as an impairment that substantially limits brain function in virtually all cases). Nonetheless, we need not decide whether the 5 The ADAAA became effective on January 1, 2009 and applies to claims, such as McElwee's, that arose after that date. See ADA Amendments Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-325, 122 Stat. 3553, 3559 (2008). -20- district court erred in finding McElwee was not disabled because even assuming arguendo that a reasonable jury could find McElwee disabled, the County is entitled to summary judgment for the reasons set forth below.