Opinion ID: 200809
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did the Plaintiff Suffer a Mental Impairment?

Text: 75 The answer to the first question, on the facts of this case, is obviously in the affirmative. This circuit has recognized depression as a mental impairment that may constitute, at least in some circumstances, a disability under federal law. See Criado v. IBM Corp., 145 F.3d 437, 442 (1st Cir. 1998). A number of other circuits have also recognized depression as a qualifying mental impairment. See, e.g., Ogborn v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local No. 881, 305 F.3d 763, 767 (7th Cir.2002) (Major depression can constitute a disability under the ADA.); Snead v. Metro. Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 237 F.3d 1080, 1088 n. 8 (9th Cir.2001) (In Oregon, stress and depression can be considered mental impairments. The same is true under the ADA.); Pritchard v. Southern Co. Servs., 92 F.3d 1130, 1132 (11th Cir. 1996), amended in part on reh'g, 102 F.3d 1118, cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1274, 117 S.Ct. 2453, 138 L.Ed.2d 211 (1997) (Depression has been held to constitute a mental impairment.); Doe v. Region 13 Mental Health-Mental Retardation Comm'n., 704 F.2d 1402, 1408 (5th Cir.1983) (same). 76 Moreover, the record in this case provides more than sufficient evidence to permit a factfinder to conclude that the plaintiff, in fact, was suffering from major depression during the relevant period. The record confirms Calero's prior history of depression, her diagnosis of depression by at least two physicians, her antidepressant medication, her numerous required medical leaves from work, and her partial hospitalization. In sum, as a matter of law and of fact, the record clearly favors the plaintiff on the first of the three pertinent questions. A factfinder could easily determine that she suffered a qualified mental impairment. To determine whether the record would support a finding that plaintiff suffered a disability, we now turn to the next question. 77