Opinion ID: 770536
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether Hoskins is Disabled Within the Meaning of the ADA

Text: 13 The district court determined, based upon Hoskins's own testimony, that she did not establish that she was disabled within the meaning of the ADA. The statute defines disability as (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. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2). It is uncontested that Hoskins has a physical impairment, as her condition affects both her musculoskeletal and respiratory systems. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1) (1999). 1 Additionally, Hoskins's disability affects several of her major life activities, including breathing, moving, performing manual tasks such as doing laundry, and working. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i) (defining major life activities as functions such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working). 14 The question is whether Hoskins's disability substantially limits any of these major life activities. The regulations provide that substantially limits means (i) Unable to perform a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform; or (ii) Significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under which an individual can perform a particular major life activity ascompared to the condition, manner, or duration under which the average person in the general population can perform that same major life activity. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1). The regulations further provide a list of factors to be considered in determining whether an individual meets this definition: (i) The nature and severity of the impairment; (ii) The duration or expected duration of the impairment; and (iii) The permanent or long term impact, or the expected permanent or long term impact of or resulting from the impairment. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(2). 15 The district court relied on Hoskins's own testimony to conclude that her impairment does not substantially limit any major life activities. Hoskins testified: I have to be careful the way I move at times. It hurts to cough, sneeze, if I breathe the wrong way. But I learned just to kind of ignore it or -- I just be careful with the way I do things. J.A. at 203 (Hoskins Dep.). Hoskins also testified that in her daily activities such as doing laundry, she sometimes feels pain that causes her to stop doing that activity. However, Hoskins indicated that she does not let her impairments stop her from doing anything and that she attempt[s] to do everything. J.A. at 203 (Hoskins Dep.). The district court quoted the following passage from Hoskins's testimony, finding it especially significant: 16 Q:Would it be a fair statement that you have learned some behavior that allows you to avoid discomfort [in the chest area] by avoiding certain activities? 17 A:No, not avoiding certain activities. 18 Q:Just the way you do them? 19 A:Yes. A little bit more careful. 20 J.A. at 32 (D. Ct. Op.). 21 We believe that the district court employed an exceedingly narrow interpretation of substantially limits. Of course, in determining whether a disability substantially limits a major life activity, the Supreme Court has instructed that courts are to consider natural adoptive measures that mitigate the disability. See Albertson's, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. 555, 565-66 (1999). However, under the reasoning of the district court, an individual would be disabled within the meaning of the ADA only if she can show that she has avoided certain major life activities as a result of her impairment. This is not the law; as the applicable regulations instruct, an individual is substantially limited if she is able to perform a major life activity but is [s]ignificantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under which she can perform that activity. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1)(ii). We conclude that Hoskins has raised a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether her impairment substantially limits the major life activities of breathing, moving, and performing manual tasks such as doing laundry 2 . According to Hoskins's testimony, both the manner and duration under which she can perform these major life activities are significantly restricted. She testified that after her accident, she must now be careful about the way that she moves. Although she attempt[s] to do everything, she must sometimes cease for a time performing daily activities because of the pain. J.A. at 203 (Hoskins Dep.). The duration of Hoskins's impairment is likely permanent. In support of their position, the defendants cite Kocsis v. Multi-Care Management, Inc., 97 F.3d 876 (6th Cir. 1996), a case in which this court concluded, based upon the plaintiff's own admissions, that her multiple sclerosis did not substantially limit any of her major life activities. However, we find Kocsis inapposite becausein that case, unlike in the instant case, the plaintiff testified in her deposition that none of her impairments -- arthritis, MS, or any combination of health problems -- limited her activity in any way. Id. at 884 (emphasis added). 22