99-2431 Furnish v. SVI Systems, Inc.

Listen to this article

“The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Regulations interpreting the ADA (‘ADA regulations’) describe major life activities as activities such as ‘caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.’ 29 C.F.R. sec. 1630.2(i). While this list is intended to be illustrative, rather than exhaustive, see Sinkler v. Midwest Property Management Limited Partnership, 209 F.3d 678, 684 (7th Cir. 2000), ‘liver function’ bears little resemblance to the major life activities enunciated in the ADA regulations.”

“Although liver function is ‘integral to one’s daily existence’ in that one needs a healthy liver to remove toxins from the blood, liver function is not ‘integral to one’s daily existence’ under [Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624 (1998)] and its progeny. The alleged major life activity here – liver function – is a characteristic of the impairment, much as a decline in white blood cells is a characteristic of the HIV virus. See Bragdon, 524 U.S. at 635. However, in Bragdon, the Court did not hinge its conclusion that the plaintiff was disabled on a characteristic of her impairment. For example, the Court did not focus on the fact that her ‘blood health’ was impacted. Rather, the Court evaluated the impairment’s impact on her ability to reproduce. The activities that have been held to be major life activities under the ADA (e.g., eating, working, reproducing) are not the impairments’ characteristics – they are activities that have been impacted because of the plaintiffs’ impairments. Therefore, we reject the notion that ‘liver function’ is a major life activity under the ADA.”

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, McDade, J., Kanne, J.