Larry Rohr has type 2 diabetes. Failing to follow a strict diet aggravates his disease. His physician proscribes overnight, out-of-town travel. Rohr was a welding metallurgy specialist for Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, which provides utility services to homes in Arizona. Salt River told Rohr that his restrictions on travel prevented him from performing the essential functions of his job, such as responding to a power outage. Rohr was asked to transfer, apply for disability benefits, or take early retirement. He filed a suit in a federal district court against Salt River, alleging discrimination. The court issued a judgment in the employer's favor. Rohr appealed.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded. The ADA defines disability to include a physical impairment that substantially limits a major life activity. Diabetes is a physical impairment because it affects the digestive, hemic, and endocrine systems. Major life activities include eating. And for Rohr the effort to control his diet is substantially limiting.
- Salt River argued that type 1 diabetes is harder to control than Rohr's type 2 diabetes. If this were true, would it support a conclusion that Rohr does not suffer from a disability?
- In this case, the court considered eating a major life activity. What are some other major life activities that might be limited by a physical or mental impairment?
- To show that an impairment substantially restricts the major life activity of eating involves a comparison between "the condition, manner or duration under which [the impaired individual] can eat as compared to the condition, manner or duration under which the average person in the general population can eat." Would simply eating differently qualify?