Opinion ID: 572427
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether Gilbert Was an Individual With Handicaps

Text: 18 Section 706(8) of the Act defines the term individual with handicaps, in pertinent part, as any person who (i) has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of such person's major life activities, [or] (ii) has a record of such an impairment. 29 U.S.C. § 706(8)(B). On this appeal, Gilbert does not challenge the district court's finding that he did not meet the first prong of the test, i.e., the finding that he did not have, at the time of his employment applications, an impairment which substantially limit[ed] one or more of [his] major life activities, id. § 706(8)(B)(i). Rather, he contends that the court erred in not finding that he met the second prong, i.e., that he was covered by the Act because he ha[d] a record of such an impairment, id. § 706(8)(B)(ii). 19 The difficulty with Gilbert's present contention is that it was not the basis on which the case was tried in the district court. Though we have some discretion to consider an issue not passed upon by the district court, Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 121, 96 S.Ct. 2868, 2877, 49 L.Ed.2d 826 (1976), and we have done so where the plaintiff has brought all of the pertinent facts to the district court's attention and there are only legal, not factual, disputes, see, e.g., Bornholdt v. Brady, 869 F.2d 57, 68 (2d Cir.1989), we do not deem it appropriate to consider the record-of-impairment issue here. Here, the district court was not alerted that this was the nature of Gilbert's claim, for neither the extensive Pretrial Order setting forth the parties' contentions nor the parties at trial described the claim in this way. Further, Gilbert did not offer any evidence to suggest that the Postal Service's failure to hire him was caused simply by his medical history. See Doe v. New York University, 666 F.2d at 776 (causal connection is part of prima facie case). The issue not having been pursued by Gilbert in the district court and the court having conducted a seven-day trial on the case as Gilbert did present it, we decline to consider his new theory here or to remand to permit the case to be retried on that theory. 20 On the other hand, though Gilbert does not argue that he met the first prong of the individual-with-handicaps test, i.e., that PKD was a physical impairment that substantially limited one or more of his major life activities at the time of his employment applications, we are constrained to note our disagreement with the district court's rejection of that premise. Regulations promulgated under the Act by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and its predecessor agency define physical impairment to include any physiological disorder or condition ... affecting ... [the] genito-urinary system. 45 C.F.R. § 84.3(j)(2)(i) (1990). The regulations define major life activities as functions such as caring for one's self, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working. Id. § 84.3(j)(2)(ii). The Act and the regulations promulgated under it are to be interpreted broadly. Arline, 480 U.S. at 280 n. 5, 107 S.Ct. at 1127 n. 5 (a broad definition, one not limited to so-called 'traditional handicaps,' is inherent in the statutory definition); Doe v. New York University, 666 F.2d at 775 (definition [of a person with handicaps] is not to be construed in a niggardly fashion). We are inclined to view persons whose kidneys would cease to function without mechanical assistance, or whose kidneys do not function sufficiently to rid their bodies of waste matter without regular dialysis, as being substantially limited in their ability to care for themselves. See Rhode Island Handicapped Action Committee v. Rhode Island Public Transit Authority, 718 F.2d 490, 493 (1st Cir.1983) (discussing obiter the many handicapped people suffering from ... kidney disease). 21 Accordingly, we disagree with the district court's conclusion that Gilbert was not an individual with handicaps within the meaning of the Act. 22