Opinion ID: 2972735
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Lifting

Text: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Interpretive Guidance specifically includes “lifting” as a major life activity. 29 C.F.R. pt. 1630, App. § 1630.2(i); see Penny v. UPS, 128 F.3d 408, 414 (6th Cir. 1997); see also, Mahon v. Crowell, 295 F.3d 585, 591 (6th Cir. 2002). 9 Gerton argues that because a Verizon doctor restricted her from lifting more than 10 lbs. (later 5 lbs.), this is evidence of the “employer’s” state of mind that the employer “regarded” Gerton as disabled and that she is disabled since “lifting” is a major life activity, citing Ross v. Campbell Soup Co., 237 F.3d 701 (6th Cir. 2001)2 and Hayes v. United Parcel Service, 17 Fed.Appx. 317 (6th Cir. 2001) (unpublished). (Appellant’s Br., pp. 17-18) Gerton analogizes her claim involving “lifting” to a case involving “sitting.” She cites Hayes, an unpublished decision, which involved an individual who claimed that his back injury rendered him unable to sit, where “sitting” is a major life activity. Hayes, 17 Fed.Appx. at 320. The district court ruled that the plaintiff was required to compare his ability to sit with the average person’s ability to sit and that he had failed to provide such evidence. The plaintiff in Hayes presented evidence that he participated in an occupation readiness program for four months where he was evaluated and his sitting capability was measured at 20 or 25 minutes. Id. at 320. On appeal, we determined that the plaintiff was not required to present evidence comparing the average person’s ability to sit with his own ability to sit, stating, “[c]ommon sense and life experiences will permit finders of fact to determine whether someone who cannot sit for more than this period of time is significantly restricted as compared to the average person.” Id. at 321. Gerton argues that because she has presented evidence that she was restricted at work from using her right hand and lifting not more than 5 lbs., she is also unable to perform any lifting activities in her daily life 2 Although Gerton raised the major life activity of “lifting” in her brief before the district court, Gerton did not raise the “regarding as” argument below. This court need not address arguments not presented to the district court. Fed. R. App. 10(a); United States v. Bonds, 12 F.3d 540, 552 (6th Cir. 1993). We note Ross addressed the issue of the “regarded as” theory under the ADA which directs the courts to look to the state of mind of the employer against whom a plaintiff makes a claim. Ross, 237 F.3d at 706. Ross will not be considered since the issue was not raised below. 10 outside work and is therefore disabled based on the major life activity of “lifting.” Hayes is distinguishable. Unlike Hayes, Gerton did not submit any evidence which measured her inability to lift at work, other than Dr. Mueller’s restrictions not to lift 5 or 10 lbs. Dr. Mueller restricted Gerton to lifting 10 lbs., and later, 5 lbs., between March 20 and 29, 2001. (J.A. 490-96) The medical records do not show that she was unable to lift more than 5 or 10 lbs., nor do they show that she was required to demonstrate her ability to lift. (J.A. 490-96) Even if Hayes was applicable, that decision was issued before the Supreme Court’s opinion in Williams. In the context of the major life activity of performing “manual tasks,” “the central inquiry must be whether the claimant is unable to perform the variety of tasks central to most people’s daily lives, not whether the claimant is unable to perform the tasks associated with her specific job.” See Williams, 534 U.S. at 200-01; see also, Equal Opportunity Employment Comm’n v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., 111 Fed. Appx. 394, 399 (6th Cir. 2004) (unpublished opinion). Gerton points to no evidence that her impairment substantially limited her ability to lift in her daily life outside work. Even if Gerton was unable to lift more than 5 or 10 lbs., she has not presented any evidence to show that the inability to lift this amount substantially limits her ability to lift anything else she requires in her daily life outside work. Gerton has not submitted sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact that her impairment limits her major life activity of lifting.