Murphy v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 527 U.S. 516, 8 (1999)

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Cite as: 527 U. S. 516 (1999)

Opinion of the Court

and whether respondent has a defense based on the DOT regulations, see Albertson's, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, post, p. 555, issues not addressed by the court below or raised in the petition for certiorari.

The only issue remaining is whether the evidence that petitioner is regarded as unable to obtain DOT certification (regardless of whether he can, in fact, obtain optional temporary certification) is sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether petitioner is regarded as substantially limited in one or more major life activities. As in Sutton, ante, at 491-492, we assume, arguendo, that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulations regarding the disability determination are valid. When referring to the major life activity of working, the EEOC defines "substantially limits" as: "significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities." 29 CFR § 1630.2( j)(3)(i) (1998). The EEOC further identifies several factors that courts should consider when determining whether an individual is substantially limited in the major life activity of working, including "the number and types of jobs utilizing similar training, knowledge, skills or abilities, within [the] geographical area [reasonably accessible to the individual], from which the individual is also disqualified." § 1630.2( j)(3)(ii)(B). Thus, to be regarded as substantially limited in the major life activity of working, one must be regarded as precluded from more than a particular job. See § 1630.2( j)(3)(i) ("The inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working").

Again, assuming without deciding that these regulations are valid, petitioner has failed to demonstrate that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether he is regarded as disabled. Petitioner was fired from the position of UPS mechanic because he has a physical impairment—hyperten-

523

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: October 4, 2007