Opinion ID: 3017184
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: ADHD/ADD is a disability under the ADA.

Text: Collins argues that our decision in Gagliardo v. Connaught Laboratories, Inc., 311 F.3d 565 (3d Cir. 2002) demonstrates that ADHD/ADD is a disability under the 10 ADA.5 Even if so, that conclusion is neither remarkable nor conclusive here. She next claims that Gagliardo endorsed the EEOC regulations defining “substantially limited.” The EEOC’s regulations, define “substantially limited” as: “Significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under which an individual can perform a particular major life activity as compared 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). The regulations list several factors that should be considered in evaluating whether someone is “substantially limited.” These include: “(I) The nature and severity of the impairment; (ii) The duration or expected duration of the impairment; (iii) The permanent or long term impact, or the expected permanent or long term impact of or resulting from the impairment.” Id. § 1630.2(j)(2). We assume that Collins is arguing that she presented sufficient evidence to support a finding that she was substantially limited in the major life activities of thinking, learning, concentrating and remembering under the EEOC’s regulations. However, in Gagliardo, we merely mentioned the EEOC regulations. Moreover, the Supreme Court 5 To the extent that Collins is claiming that there is such a thing as a disability per se, Collins is mistaken. It is clear that “[m]erely having an impairment does not make one disabled for purposes of the ADA.” Williams, 534 U.S. at 195. “[W]hether a person has a disability under the ADA is an individualized inquiry.” Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 483 (1999). An ADA plaintiff “need[s] to demonstrate that the impairment limits a major life activity.” Williams, 534 U.S. at 195. 11 has questioned whether any deference is owed to the EEOC’s regulations in this regard. In Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 479 (1999), the Court noted that “[n]o agency has been given authority to issue regulations implementing the generally applicable provisions of the ADA,” and, “[m]ost notably, no agency has been delegated authority to interpret the term ‘disability.’” In Williams, 534 U.S. at 194, the Court referred to Sutton and noted that “[t]he persuasive authority of the EEOC regulations is less clear.” In any event, we do not believe that Gagliardo supports Collins’ claim that she is disabled under the ADA. There, in affirming the district court’s denial of the employer’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, we explained: First, Gagliardo’s physician . . . testified that there was no cure for MS and that MS produced Gagliardo’s fatigue.6 [He] also expressed his opinion as an expert that Gagliardo was substantially limited in her ability to, among other things, learn, work, and think. Second, Gagliardo testified she experienced muscle spasms and fatigue. Third, four of Gagliardo’s coworkers testified as to her fatigue and muscle spasms. Fourth, Gagliardo produced evidence that her supervisor recognized her memory problems, having provided Gagliardo with video and audio tapes to assist Gagliardo in overcoming her memory problems. Lastly, Gagliardo’s son and her husband similarly testified that she was often fatigued and had trouble concentrating and focusing. 311 F.3d at 569-70. 6 Gagliardo’s “fatigue affected her ability to think, focus and remember.” 311 F.3d at 567. 12 However, Collins’ evidence does not establish the kind of limitations evident in Gagliardo. Moreover, her cross-examination testimony about her work, academic, and community involvement contradicts her claim that her ADHD/ADD substantially limits her abilities to think, learn, remember and concentrate.7 Dr. Harvey, the psychologist, did diagnose her with ADHD/ADD. However, his testimony about Collins’ limitations was simply a recitation of the things Collins told him when he first interviewed her. He testified: A: Yes, the concerns she raised on the history form that she completed and during the initial interview had to do with her concerns about her rate of work and productivity. She states that it always took her longer to do tasks and that she typically needed to budget extra time. She felt – she described that she would get overwhelmed with a deadline. She talked about difficulties focusing. She stated that she needed to go over her work several times to make sure it was correct. She described times when it felt like her brain kind of froze up or shut off even on a task that she knew well, she just couldn’t remember how to do it. She also described organizational difficulties. Dr. Harvey did not treat Collins and his contact with her was extremely limited as she was treated by Dr. Christine Terry. We are therefore not convinced that Gagliardo supports Collins’ ADA claim. 7 Collins claims that she has had ADHD/ADD since childhood. Assuming that is true, it would seem that the problems she had at Prudential would have plagued her for her entire life and would have prevented her from achieving the things she did before she was hired by Prudential. She is not like the plaintiff in Gagliardo, who had a good work history until she developed MS later in life. 13