U.S. Code » Title 42 » Chapter CHAPTER 126— EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES

42 U.S.C. § 12102

Definition of disability

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar
As used in this chapter:(1) DisabilityThe term “disability” means, with respect to an individual—(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual;(B) a record of such an impairment; or(C) being regarded as having such an impairment (as described in paragraph (3)).(2) Major life activities(A) In general

For purposes of paragraph (1), major life activities include, but are not limited to, caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working.

(B) Major bodily functions

For purposes of paragraph (1), a major life activity also includes the operation of a major bodily function, including but not limited to, functions of the immune system, normal cell growth, digestive, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, endocrine, and reproductive functions.

(3) Regarded as having such an impairmentFor purposes of paragraph (1)(C):(A) An individual meets the requirement of “being regarded as having such an impairment” if the individual establishes that he or she has been subjected to an action prohibited under this chapter because of an actual or perceived physical or mental impairment whether or not the impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity.(B) Paragraph (1)(C) shall not apply to impairments that are transitory and minor. A transitory impairment is an impairment with an actual or expected duration of 6 months or less.(4) Rules of construction regarding the definition of disabilityThe definition of “disability” in paragraph (1) shall be construed in accordance with the following:(A) The definition of disability in this chapter shall be construed in favor of broad coverage of individuals under this chapter, to the maximum extent permitted by the terms of this chapter.(B) The term “substantially limits” shall be interpreted consistently with the findings and purposes of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.(C) An impairment that substantially limits one major life activity need not limit other major life activities in order to be considered a disability.(D) An impairment that is episodic or in remission is a disability if it would substantially limit a major life activity when active.(E)(i) The determination of whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity shall be made without regard to the ameliorative effects of mitigating measures such as—(I) medication, medical supplies, equipment, or appliances, low-vision devices (which do not include ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses), prosthetics including limbs and devices, hearing aids and cochlear implants or other implantable hearing devices, mobility devices, or oxygen therapy equipment and supplies;(II) use of assistive technology;(III) reasonable accommodations or auxiliary aids or services; or(IV) learned behavioral or adaptive neurological modifications.(ii) The ameliorative effects of the mitigating measures of ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses shall be considered in determining whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity.(iii) As used in this subparagraph—(I) the term “ordinary eyeglasses or contact lenses” means lenses that are intended to fully correct visual acuity or eliminate refractive error; and(II) the term “low-vision devices” means devices that magnify, enhance, or otherwise augment a visual image.(Pub. L. 101–336, § 3, July 26, 1990, 104 Stat. 329; Pub. L. 110–325, § 4(a), Sept. 25, 2008, 122 Stat. 3555.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original “this Act”, meaning Pub. L. 101–336, July 26, 1990, 104 Stat. 327, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 12101 of this title and Tables.

The ADA Amendments Act of 2008, referred to in par. (4)(B), is Pub. L. 110–325, Sept. 25, 2008, 122 Stat. 3553. Section 2 of the Act, relating to the findings and purposes of the Act, is set out as a note under section 12101 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title of 2008 Amendment note under section 12101 of this title and Tables.

Amendments

2008—Pub. L. 110–325 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, section consisted of pars. (1) to (3) defining for purposes of this chapter “auxiliary aids and services”, “disability”, and “State”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2008 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 110–325 effective Jan. 1, 2009, see section 8 of Pub. L. 110–325, set out as a note under section 705 of Title 29, Labor.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6,582 cases (2,184 in the last 5 years), 1992–2026 · leading case: Jacqueline Lewis v. City of Union City, Georgia, 934 F.3d 1169 (11th Cir. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jacqueline Lewis v. City of Union City, Georgia, 934 F.3d 1169 (11th Cir. 2019). · cites it 9× “Ms. Lewis argues that she meets the definition of “disabled” under both the “actually disabled” and the “regarded as disabled” prongs.”
Mancini v. City of Providence, 909 F.3d 32 (1st Cir. 2018). · cites it 9× “In that regard, the ADA offers three alternative definitions of disability: "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities," 42 U.S.C. § 12102 (1)(A) 4 ; "a record of such an impairment," id.”
Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624 (1998). · cites it 10× “major life activities," or is so perceived, 42 U. S. C. §§ 12102 (2)(A), (C), including the afflicted individual's family relations, employment potential, and ability to care for herself, see 45 CFR § 84.”
Audrey Jacques, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Dimarzio, Inc., Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, 386 F.3d 192 (2d Cir. 2004). · cites it 11× “) awarding $190,000 in damages to Plaintiff Audrey Jacques, a former DiMarzio employee who alleged that DiMarzio fired her because she was “regarded as” disabled, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12102 (2)(C). Jacques cross-appeals…”
Ahmad Nurriddin v. Charles Bolden, 818 F.3d 751 (D.C. Cir. 2016). · cites it 6× “§ 705 (20) (B) (cross-referencing 42 U.S.C. § 12102 (1)). Assuming that working is a major life activity, see Adams, 531 F.”
Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. BNSF Ry. Co., 902 F.3d 916 (9th Cir. 2018). · cites it 9× “42 U.S.C. § 12102 (1)(C). 5 The ADA currently provides that: An individual meets the requirement of "being regarded as having such an impairment" if the individual establishes that he or she has been subjected to an action prohibited under [the ADA] because of an actual or…”
David Giordano v. City of New York, Howard Safir, Police Comm'r, New York City Police Dep't, Med. Bd., Police Pension Fund, Article II, 274 F.3d 740 (2d Cir. 2001). · cites it 6× “A The Definition of Disability Under the ADA Title 42 U.S.C. § 12102 (2) defines a disability as: (A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities .”
Kelly v. New York State Off. of Mental Health, 200 F. Supp. 3d 378 (E.D.N.Y 2016). · cites it 8× “” 42 U.S.C. § 12102 (1); 29 U.S.C. § 705 (20)(B).”
Jakomas v. City of Pittsburgh, 342 F. Supp. 3d 632 (W.D. Pa. 2018). · cites it 10× “" 42 U.S.C. § 12102 (1) (emphasis added). A "major life activity" includes "working.”
David Neely v. Benchmark Fam. Servs., 640 F. App'x 429 (6th Cir. 2016). · cites it 8× “” 42 U.S.C. § 12102 (1)(A)-(C). Because Neely failed to put forward evidence that would allow any rational trier of fact to conclude he has a disability, he is not “disabled” under the ADA and we affirm the grant of summary judgment on Neely’s discriminatory discharge claims.”
Heidi Hostettler v. Coll. of Wooster, 895 F.3d 844 (6th Cir. 2018). · cites it 4× “" 42 U.S.C. § 12102 (4)(A). That is because the primary concern of the ADA is "whether covered entities have complied with their obligations and whether discrimination has occurred," not whether an individual's impairment is a disability.”
B.C. v. Mount Vernon Sch. Dist., 837 F.3d 152 (2d Cir. 2016). · cites it 6× “§ 1401 (3)(A), can establish a prima facie case with respect to a claim predicated on the plaintiff having a “disability” under the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12102 (1), and Section 504, 29 U.”
Show all 6,582 citing cases →
— 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1) — 12 cases
Wallace v. Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott, LLC, 57 A.3d 943 (D.C. 2012).
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Grane Healthcare Co., 2 F. Supp. 3d 667 (W.D. Pa. 2014).
Irvin v. Versatrim, LLC (E.D.N.C. 2024).
Hamilton v. New York State The Off. Of The State Comptroller (N.D.N.Y. 2023).
Elias v. Wynn Las Vegas LLC (D. Nev. 2024).
— 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(A) — 12 cases
Hendrik Block v. 7-Eleven, Inc (N.D. Cal. 2021).
Bardell v. Banyan Delaware LLC (D. Del. 2023).
Hammond v. Illinois Dep't of Corr. (C.D. Ill. 2020).
Wilson v. Illinois Dep't of Corr. (C.D. Ill. 2020).
Daly v. Westchester Cnty. Bd. of Legislators (S.D.N.Y. 2021).
— 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(C) — 2 cases
Elias v. Wynn Las Vegas LLC (D. Nev. 2024).
Cross v. Valley Servs., Inc., 963 F. Supp. 2d 1232 (D. Utah 2013).
— 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2) — 22 cases
Peter v. Lincoln Technical Inst., Inc., 255 F. Supp. 2d 417 (E.D. Pa. 2002).
Betty Faye Price v. Marathon Cheese Corp., 119 F.3d 330 (5th Cir. 1997).
Pryor v. Trane Co., 138 F.3d 1024 (5th Cir. 1998).
Mercado Cordova v. Walmart Puerto Rico, Inc., 369 F. Supp. 3d 336 (2019).
Hodson v. Alpine Manor, Inc., 512 F. Supp. 2d 373 (W.D. Pa. 2007).
— 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(A) — 14 cases
Stinnett v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 278 F. Supp. 3d 599 (E.D.N.Y 2017).
Latrona Renee Moore v. W. Illinois Corr. Ctr., 89 F.4th 582 (7th Cir. 2023).
Brown v. Farmland Foods, Inc., 178 F. Supp. 2d 961 (N.D. Iowa 2001).
Durrant v. Chem./Chase Bank/Manhattan Bank, N.A., 81 F. Supp. 2d 518 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
Christopher Butler v. FedEx Supply Chain, Inc. (M.D. Penn. 2026).
— 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(B) — 5 cases
Hamilton v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 136 F.3d 1047 (5th Cir. 1998).
Roman v. Hertz Local Edition Corp. (S.D. Cal. 2022).
Bordeaux v. Halstead Prop. Dev. Mktg. LLC (S.D.N.Y. 2022).
Siko v. Astrazeneca Pharm. Lp (W.D. Pa. 2024).
5539-181 & 182 Prospect Park W. Brooklyn LLC v. Rivera, 2025 NY Slip Op 25198 (Civ. Ct. NYC, Kings Cty. 2025).
— 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(C) — 1 case
Rivera-Mercado v. Scotiabank De Puerto Rico-Int'l, 571 F. Supp. 2d 279 (D.P.R. 2008).
— 42 U.S.C. § 12102(3) — 4 cases
Amos v. Welles (E.D.N.C. 2020).
Hartley v. The Boeing Co. (E.D. Pa. 2019).
White v. SKF USA Inc. (E.D. Tenn. 2023).
Beam v. Se. Freight Lines, Inc. (E.D.N.C. 2020).
— 42 U.S.C. § 12102(3)(A) — 3 cases
Thomsen v. Stantec, Inc., 483 F. App'x 620 (2d Cir. 2012).
White v. SKF USA Inc. (E.D. Tenn. 2023).
Elias v. Wynn Las Vegas LLC (D. Nev. 2024).
— 42 U.S.C. § 12102(3)(B) — 4 cases
Bereznak v. Arrow Elec., Inc. (D. Colo. 2024).
Carn Scott v. Wedge Recovery Ctr. (E.D. Pa. 2024).
Love v. Wayfair LLC (D. Maryland 2025).
Draghi (E.D.N.Y 2026).
— 42 U.S.C. § 12102(4)(A) — 3 cases
Jenkins v. Chicago Transit Auth. (N.D. Ill. 2020).
Tyson Carter v. Eagle Railcar Servs. Longview, Texas, LLC. (E.D. Tex. 2022).
Katrina S. Ferguson v. City of Philadelphia Dep't of Human Servs., et al. (E.D. Pa. 2026).
— 42 U.S.C. § 12102(4)(B) — 1 case
5539-181 & 182 Prospect Park W. Brooklyn LLC v. Rivera, 2025 NY Slip Op 25198 (Civ. Ct. NYC, Kings Cty. 2025).
— 42 U.S.C. § 12102(4)(D) — 4 cases
Mueck v. La Grange Acquisitions, 75 F.4th 469 (5th Cir. 2023).
Mueck v. La Grange Acquisitions (5th Cir. 2023).
Avonte Leshay Smith v. TMG Richmond IV, LP (E.D. Va. 2026).
5539-181 & 182 Prospect Park W. Brooklyn LLC v. Rivera, 2025 NY Slip Op 25198 (Civ. Ct. NYC, Kings Cty. 2025).
— 42 U.S.C. § 12102(4)(E)(ii) — 1 case
Floyd v. Lee, 85 F. Supp. 3d 482 (D.D.C. 2015).
— 42 U.S.C. § 12102(A) — 1 case
Davis v. SeaWorld Parks & Ent., Inc. (M.D. Fla. 2023).
— 42 U.S.C. § 12102(l) — 1 case
El Paso Cnty., Texas v. Mary Lou Vasquez, 508 S.W.3d 626 (Tex. App. 2016).
— 42 U.S.C. § 12102(l)(c) — 1 case
In Re Application of Henry, 2013 SD 93 (S.D. 2013).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.