alt_religion_scientology/FACTNetARS20020404

Found at:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=...
089

"Merely having an impairment does not make one disabled for purposes of the
ADA. Claimants also need to demonstrate that the impairment limits a major
life activity. See 42 U.S.C. 12102(2)(A) (1994 ed.). ..The EEOC...has
created its own definition for purposes of the ADA. According to the EEOC
regulations, substantially limit[ed] means [u]nable to perform a major life
activity that the average person in the general population can perform; or
[s]ignificantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under
which an individual can perform a particular major life activity as compared
to the condition, manner, or duration under which the average person in the
general population can perform that same major life activity. 29 CFR
1630.2(j) (2001). In determining whether an individual is substantially
limited in a major life activity, the regulations instruct that the
following factors should be considered: [t]he nature and severity of the
impairment; [t]he duration or expected duration of the impairment; and [t]he
permanent or long-term impact, or the expected permanent or long-term impact
of or resulting from the impairment. 1630.2(j)(2)(i)(iii).... It is
insufficient for individuals attempting to prove disability status under
this test to merely submit evidence of a medical diagnosis of an impairment.
Instead, the ADA requires those claiming the Acts protection to prove a
disability by offering evidence that the extent of the limitation [caused by
their impairment] in terms of their own experience is substantial.
Albertsons, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, supra, at 567 (holding that monocular
vision is not invariably a disability, but must be analyzed on an individual
basis, taking into account the individuals ability to compensate for the
impairment). That the Act defines disability with respect to an individual,
42 U.S.C. 12102(2), makes clear that Congress intended the existence of a
disability to be determined in such a case-by-case manner. See Sutton v.
United Air Lines, Inc., supra, at 483; Albertsons, Inc. v. Kirkingburg,
supra, at 566; cf. Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S., at 641642 (relying on
unchallenged testimony that the respondents HIV infection controlled her
decision not to have a child, and declining to consider whether HIV
infection is a per se disability under the ADA); 29 CFR pt. 1630, App.
1630.2(j) (2001) (The determination of whether an individual has a
disability is not necessarily based on the name or diagnosis of the
impairment the person has, but rather on the effect of that impairment on
the life of the individual); ibid. (The determination of whether an
individual is substantially limited in a major life activity must be made on
a case-by-case basis). "

Our Question is: "Has anyone ever succesfully claimed relief or protection
under the banner of the ADA [Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA or
Act), 104 Stat. 328, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq. (1994 ed. and Supp. V ] using a
claim based on psychological trauma such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
If so, are there any precedents regarding ex-members of religious groups?

IOHO
FACTNet Staff

--
F.A.C.T.Net, Inc.
PO Box 3135
Boulder, CO 80307-3135 USA

* Web site http://www.factnet.org/
* E-mail mailto: manage@factnet.org
* Donations http://www.factnet.org/donation.htm

* Subscriptions to Newsletters http://lists.factnet.org/mailman/listinfo/factnet-news

F.A.C.T.Net is a non-profit 501(c)(3) news source, referral service, and
archive protecting freedom of mind from harms caused by psychological
coercion.