Opinion ID: 1695044
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Major Life Activity of Working

Text: Delaney maintains that his on-the-job injury has substantially impaired his major life activity of working given that it has resulted in his inability to perform jobs requiring lifting heavy objects with his left arm and shoulder. He contends that we should ignore the fact that in February 1997 he formed his own janitorial business, which he continues to operate. In support of this contention, he cites PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661, 121 S.Ct. 1879, 149 L.Ed.2d 904 (2001), for the proposition that a handicapped individual does not lose his handicapped status simply because he is able to continue working. As Delaney puts it, a [handicapped] individual's ability to work does not diminish the fact that he still has a physical limitation. The City counters that the undisputed facts are that Delaney was injured, released to light duty, and continues to work in his own janitorial business. Under these undisputed facts, the City contends, to qualify plaintiff as handicapped would transform virtually every workers' compensation claimant into a handicapped person. We agree. Delaney's reliance on PGA Tour is not only misplaced, but also illustrates the fundamental weakness in his position. The golfer in PGA Tour had an admitted disability that substantially impaired his major life activity of walking; thus, the threshold question of being handicapped was not at issue. The issue in PGA Tour was whether the PGA had to make reasonable accommodations. Given the golfer's conceded substantial impairment in the major life activity of walking, the fact that, as Delaney posits, the golfer could perform other types of jobs besides professional golfsuch as produce golf videos or teach golf or be a television golf commentator was irrelevant. Indeed, as discussed below, the federal regulations acknowledge that any other major life activity besides working must be evaluated first before working will be considered. The instant case is thus clearly distinguishable from PGA Tour in that working is the sole major life activity on which Delaney relies in his quest to be declared handicapped under the statute. The category of working as a major life activity for purposes of determining handicap status has been questioned by the United States Supreme Court in Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 492, 119 S.Ct. 2139, 2151, 144 L.Ed.2d 450, 468-69 (1999), wherein the Court noted: Indeed, even the EEOC has expressed reluctance to define major life activities to include working and has suggested that working be viewed as a residual life activity, considered, as a last resort, only if an individual is not substantially limited with respect to any other major life activity. 29 CFR pt. 1630, App. § 1630.2(j)(1998)(emphasis added)(If an individual is substantially limited in any other major life activity, no determination should be made as to whether the individual is substantially limited in working (emphasis added)). Id. The Sutton Court, however, declined to address the validity of that category and stressed that to satisfy the requirement of be[ing] substantially limited in the major life activity of working ... one must be precluded from more than one type of job, a specialized job, or a particular job of choice. 527 U.S. at 492, 119 S.Ct. at 2151, 144 L.Ed.2d at 468. The Court noted that [i]f jobs utilizing an individual's skills (but perhaps not his or her unique talents) are available, one is not precluded from a substantial class of jobs. Similarly, if a host of different types of jobs are available, one is not precluded from a broad range of jobs. Id. Moreover, the Court cited the example in the EEOC's Interpretative Guidelines of a commercial airline pilot whose visual impairment precludes him from being a commercial pilot, yet that individual could be a commercial airline co-pilot or a pilot for a courier service and thus would not be substantially limited in the major life activity of working. 527 U.S. at 493, 119 S.Ct. at 2151, 144 L.Ed.2d at 469. [5] As in Sutton, we are not required to rule on the viability of the working category of major life activity. However, based on the reasoning in Sutton, we hold that Delaney's inability to perform the heavy duty functions of the single job position of pump maintenance foreman does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working. Nor does Delaney identify a broad class of jobs that he is unable to perform, which might be persuasive. Instead, as the City stresses, he concedes employment in his own janitorial business. That Delaney is able to work, contrary to his contention, renders his reliance on working as the sole substantially limiting major life activity misplaced. [6] Accordingly, we conclude that Delaney cannot satisfy the threshold requirement of proving he is a handicapped individual, and thus the City is entitled to summary judgment.