42 U.S.C. § 12112

Discrimination

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 42 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) General rule

No covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.

(b) ConstructionAs used in subsection (a), the term “discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability” includes—(1) limiting, segregating, or classifying a job applicant or employee in a way that adversely affects the opportunities or status of such applicant or employee because of the disability of such applicant or employee;(2) participating in a contractual or other arrangement or relationship that has the effect of subjecting a covered entity’s qualified applicant or employee with a disability to the discrimination prohibited by this subchapter (such relationship includes a relationship with an employment or referral agency, labor union, an organization providing fringe benefits to an employee of the covered entity, or an organization providing training and apprenticeship programs);(3) utilizing standards, criteria, or methods of administration—(A) that have the effect of discrimination on the basis of disability; or(B) that perpetuate the discrimination of others who are subject to common administrative control;(4) excluding or otherwise denying equal jobs or benefits to a qualified individual because of the known disability of an individual with whom the qualified individual is known to have a relationship or association;(5)(A) not making reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee, unless such covered entity can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business of such covered entity; or(B) denying employment opportunities to a job applicant or employee who is an otherwise qualified individual with a disability, if such denial is based on the need of such covered entity to make reasonable accommodation to the physical or mental impairments of the employee or applicant;(6) using qualification standards, employment tests or other selection criteria that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability or a class of individuals with disabilities unless the standard, test or other selection criteria, as used by the covered entity, is shown to be job-related for the position in question and is consistent with business necessity; and(7) failing to select and administer tests concerning employment in the most effective manner to ensure that, when such test is administered to a job applicant or employee who has a disability that impairs sensory, manual, or speaking skills, such test results accurately reflect the skills, aptitude, or whatever other factor of such applicant or employee that such test purports to measure, rather than reflecting the impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills of such employee or applicant (except where such skills are the factors that the test purports to measure).(c) Covered entities in foreign countries(1) In general

It shall not be unlawful under this section for a covered entity to take any action that constitutes discrimination under this section with respect to an employee in a workplace in a foreign country if compliance with this section would cause such covered entity to violate the law of the foreign country in which such workplace is located.

(2) Control of corporation(A) Presumption

If an employer controls a corporation whose place of incorporation is a foreign country, any practice that constitutes discrimination under this section and is engaged in by such corporation shall be presumed to be engaged in by such employer.

(B) Exception

This section shall not apply with respect to the foreign operations of an employer that is a foreign person not controlled by an American employer.

(C) DeterminationFor purposes of this paragraph, the determination of whether an employer controls a corporation shall be based on—(i) the interrelation of operations;(ii) the common management;(iii) the centralized control of labor relations; and(iv) the common ownership or financial control,of the employer and the corporation.(d) Medical examinations and inquiries(1) In general

The prohibition against discrimination as referred to in subsection (a) shall include medical examinations and inquiries.

(2) Preemployment(A) Prohibited examination or inquiry

Except as provided in paragraph (3), a covered entity shall not conduct a medical examination or make inquiries of a job applicant as to whether such applicant is an individual with a disability or as to the nature or severity of such disability.

(B) Acceptable inquiry

A covered entity may make preemployment inquiries into the ability of an applicant to perform job-related functions.

(3) Employment entrance examinationA covered entity may require a medical examination after an offer of employment has been made to a job applicant and prior to the commencement of the employment duties of such applicant, and may condition an offer of employment on the results of such examination, if—(A) all entering employees are subjected to such an examination regardless of disability;(B) information obtained regarding the medical condition or history of the applicant is collected and maintained on separate forms and in separate medical files and is treated as a confidential medical record, except that—(i) supervisors and managers may be informed regarding necessary restrictions on the work or duties of the employee and necessary accommodations;(ii) first aid and safety personnel may be informed, when appropriate, if the disability might require emergency treatment; and(iii) government officials investigating compliance with this chapter shall be provided relevant information on request; and(C) the results of such examination are used only in accordance with this subchapter.(4) Examination and inquiry(A) Prohibited examinations and inquiries

A covered entity shall not require a medical examination and shall not make inquiries of an employee as to whether such employee is an individual with a disability or as to the nature or severity of the disability, unless such examination or inquiry is shown to be job-related and consistent with business necessity.

(B) Acceptable examinations and inquiries

A covered entity may conduct voluntary medical examinations, including voluntary medical histories, which are part of an employee health program available to employees at that work site. A covered entity may make inquiries into the ability of an employee to perform job-related functions.

Information obtained under subparagraph (B) regarding the medical condition or history of any employee are subject to the requirements of subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (3).

(Pub. L. 101–336, title I, § 102, July 26, 1990, 104 Stat. 331; Pub. L. 102–166, title I, § 109(b)(2), Nov. 21, 1991, 105 Stat. 1077; Pub. L. 110–325, § 5(a), Sept. 25, 2008, 122 Stat. 3557.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

This chapter, referred to in subsec. (d)(3)(B)(iii), 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.

Constitutionality

For the constitutionality of certain provisions of this subchapter, see the Table of Laws Held Unconstitutional in Whole or in Part by the Supreme Court on the Constitution Annotated website, constitution.congress.gov.

Amendments

2008—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 110–325, § 5(a)(1), substituted “on the basis of disability” for “with a disability because of the disability of such individual”.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 110–325, § 5(a)(2), substituted “discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability” for “discriminate” in introductory provisions.

1991—Subsecs. (c), (d). Pub. L. 102–166 added subsec. (c) and redesignated former subsec. (c) as (d).

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.

Effective Date of 1991 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 102–166 inapplicable to conduct occurring before Nov. 21, 1991, see section 109(c) of Pub. L. 102–166, set out as a note under section 2000e of this title.

Effective Date

Section effective 24 months after July 26, 1990, see section 108 of Pub. L. 101–336, set out as a note under section 12111 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8,314 cases (2,712 in the last 5 years), 1991–2026 · leading case: Exby-Stolley v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 979 F.3d 784 (10th Cir. 2020).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Exby-Stolley v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 979 F.3d 784 (10th Cir. 2020). · cites it 29× “See 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (a), (b)(5)(A). More specifically, she claimed that the County had not reasonably accommodated her even though she had informed it that her physical limitations resulting from a workplace injury were preventing her from adequately completing her work, and…”

Bates v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 511 F.3d 974 (9th Cir. 2007). · cites it 18× “We granted rehearing en banc to consider the contours of a claim that an employer's safety qualification standard discriminates against otherwise "qualified" persons with disabilities, see 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (a), (b)(6), and the showing required of an employer to successfully…”

Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. C.R. England, Inc., 644 F.3d 1028 (10th Cir. 2011). · cites it 17× “England was liable for violating ADA § 102(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (b)(1), by limiting, segregating, or classifying Mr.”

US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (2002). · cites it 12× “" 42 U. S. C. § 12112 (b)(5)(A) (emphasis added).”

Hannah P. v. Daniel Coats, 916 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 2019). · cites it 10× “” 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (d)(4)(A). 14 a. Examination of a Job Applicant As an initial matter, Hannah’s arguments related to pre-employment medical examinations under the Rehabilitation Act 4 miss the mark because Hannah was a current employee, not a job applicant.”

Lewis v. Humboldt Acquisition Corp., Inc., 681 F.3d 312 (6th Cir. 2012). · cites it 14× “42 U.S.C. § 12112 (a), Pub.L. No. 101-336, Title I, § 102, 104 Stat.”

Emily Kroll v. White Lake Ambulance Auth., 691 F.3d 809 (6th Cir. 2012). · cites it 32× “Kroll argues that the district court erred in holding as a matter of law that the counseling WLAA ordered Kroll to attend does not constitute a “medical examination” under 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (d)(4)(A). WLAA contends that the district court properly granted summary judgment in its…”

Velma Bates v. Dura Auto. Sys., Inc., 767 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2014). · cites it 25× “Plaintiffs filed suit in district court, alleging, among other claims, that Dura violated ADA § 102(d)(4)(A), 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (d)(4)(A), which prohibits employers from requiring “medical examination[s]” or “mak[ing] inquiries of an employee as to whether such employee is an…”

Den Hartog v. Wasatch Academy, 129 F.3d 1076 (10th Cir. 1997). · cites it 17× “” *1082 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (a) (1994) (footnote added).”

Loder v. City of Glendale, 927 P.2d 1200 (Cal. 1997). · cites it 22× “( 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (d)(2)(A).) After an employer has made an offer of employment to a job applicant and before the applicant begins his or her employment duties, however, the ADA specifically provides that an employer may require a job *863 applicant to undergo a medical…”

Janice Hustvet v. Allina Health Sys., 910 F.3d 399 (8th Cir. 2018). · cites it 10× “The ADA prohibits covered employers from "discriminat[ing] against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and…”

Green v. State, 165 P.3d 118 (Cal. 2007). · cites it 10× “The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that plaintiffs prove they are "qualified individuals" under the statute, i.”

Show all 8,314 citing cases →

— 42 U.S.C. § 12112(5)(A) — 3 cases

Lewis v. Affiliated Enter. Solutions, LLC (N.D.N.Y. 2024).

Lewis v. Redline Hockey, LLC (N.D.N.Y. 2024).

Lewis v. R. L. Vallee, Inc. (N.D.N.Y. 2024).

— 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a) — 53 cases

Kilcrease v. Domenico Transp. Co., 828 F.3d 1214 (10th Cir. 2016).

Sidney Simpson v. Des Moines Water Works, 425 F.3d 538 (8th Cir. 2005).

Rochelle Flynn v. Distinctive Home Care, Inc., 812 F.3d 422 (5th Cir. 2016).

McNary v. Schreiber Foods, Inc., 535 F.3d 765 (8th Cir. 2008).

Betty Faye Price v. Marathon Cheese Corp., 119 F.3d 330 (5th Cir. 1997).

— 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b) — 3 cases

Moody-Herrera v. State, Dep't of Nat. Resources, 967 P.2d 79 (Alaska 1998).

Barbara A. Evans-Gray v. Amazon.com Servs. LLC (E.D. Tenn. 2026).

Robert Garvin v. Masonic Vill. at Sewickley (W.D. Pa. 2026).

— 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(1) — 1 case

Poyner v. Good Shepherd Rehab at Muhlenberg, 202 F. Supp. 2d 378 (E.D. Pa. 2002).

— 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(2) — 1 case

Klemmer v. Mgm Resorts Int'l, Inc. (D.N.J. 2025).

— 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(4) — 1 case

Clevenger v. A.M. Castle & Co. (N.D. Ill. 2025).

— 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5) — 3 cases

Hine v. Prince George's Cnty., Maryland (D. Maryland 2024).

Crawford v. Union Carbide Corp (4th Cir. 1999).

Harris v. Chater, 998 F. Supp. 223 (E.D.N.Y 1998).

— 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A) — 14 cases

Betty Faye Price v. Marathon Cheese Corp., 119 F.3d 330 (5th Cir. 1997).

Santiago Clemente v. Exec. Airlines, 213 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2000).

Chasse v. Comput. Sciences Corp., 453 F. Supp. 2d 503 (D. Conn. 2006).

Andrews v. Massachusetts Bay Transit Auth., 872 F. Supp. 2d 108 (D. Mass. 2012).

Chidebe v. MCI Telecomm. Corp., 19 F. Supp. 2d 444 (D. Maryland 1998).

— 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(B) — 1 case

Courtney-Pope v. Bd. of Educ. of Carroll Cnty. (D. Maryland 2019).

— 42 U.S.C. § 12112(c)(4)(A) — 1 case

Franklin v. City of Slidell, 928 F. Supp. 2d 874 (E.D. La. 2013).

— 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d) — 2 cases

Tice v. Centre Area Transp. Auth., 247 F.3d 506 (3rd Cir. 2001).

Trego v. Bullitt Cnty. Fiscal Court (W.D. Ky. 2022).

— 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(1) — 2 cases

Barnes v. Cochran, 944 F. Supp. 897 (S.D. Fla. 1996).

Egelkrout, Jo Anne v. Aspirus, Inc. (W.D. Wis. 2022).

— 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(3) — 1 case

Diane M. Cossette v. Minnesota Power & Light, an Emp. & Bus. Corp. in the State of Minnesota Joseph C. Burton, 188 F.3d 964 (8th Cir. 1999).

— 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4)(A) — 12 cases

Conrad v. Bd. of Johnson Cnty. Commissioners, 237 F. Supp. 2d 1204 (D. Kan. 2002).

Floyd v. Suntrust Banks, Inc., 878 F. Supp. 2d 1316 (N.D. Ga. 2012).

U.S. Equal Emp't Opportunity Comm'n v. Gulf Logistics Operating, Inc., 371 F. Supp. 3d 300 (E.D. La. 2019).

Trego v. Bullitt Cnty. Fiscal Court (W.D. Ky. 2022).

Brasier v. Union Pac. R.R. Co. (D. Ariz. 2023).

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.