Example 1 Of Substantial Limitation of Major Life Activities.

Example 1 Of Substantial Limitation of Major Life Activities. Claimant (CP) alleges that her employer discriminated against her on the basis of disability. She defines her disability as a ''knee injury.'' When the investigator asks how the injury affects her, CP responds, ''I don't know.'' She provides no information in response to the investigator's inquiries about the extent to which the injury restricts her ability to walk or to perform any other activities. There is no showing that the knee injury limits CP in any way. As a result, there is no evidence that CP's knee injury substantially limits one or more of her major life activities. To rise to the level of a disability, an impairment must significantly restrict an individual's major life activities. Impairments that result in only mild limitations are not disabilities. Thus, a mild case of varicose veins that moderately affect an individual's ability to stand and to sit is not a disability. Similarly, a ''borderline'' case of cerebral palsy that only slightly interferes with an individual's ability to read (because of poor control over ocular muscles) and to speak also is not a disability. In both instances, impairments may affect major life activities, but they do not substantially restrict those activities. One of the reasons an individualized approach is necessary is because the same types of impairments often vary in severity and often restrict different people to different degrees or in different ways. 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. Some impairments may be disabling for particular individuals but not for others, depending on the stage of the disease or disorder, the presence of other impairments that combine to make the impairment disabling or any number of other factors. For example, in one case the plaintiff sustained a back injury that resulted in considerable pain. The evidence indicated that the plaintiff's back pain restricted ''her ability to walk, sit, stand, drive, care for her home and child, and engage in leisure pastimes.'' As a result, the court found that the plaintiff was an individual with a disability. In another case, however, a court determined that a general laborer who had sustained a back injury was not an individual with a disability. The plaintiff in that case had been able to continue an active life that included weight lifting and other recreational activities. In addition, he had obtained alternative employment as a security guard and had not been significantly restricted in employment. Id. Accordingly, the court found that the plaintiff's back injury did not rise to the level of a disability.