After the amendments to the ADA, it doesn’t make any sense for an attorney to defend on the grounds that a disability doesn’t exist, with a notable exception being where the major life activity of working is involved. It should be a rare situation where plaintiff alleges the major life activity of working considering all of the other options available to a plaintiff after the amendments. Our case of the day illustrates how defending on the ground that an ADA disability doesn’t exist is very much an uphill climb. The case is Edwards v. Shelby County, Tennessee decided by the Sixth Circuit on November 7, 2025, here. It is a published decision. As usual, the blog entry is divided into categories and they are: facts; court’s reasoning affirming the disability discrimination claim by rejecting defendant’s claim that night blindness was not a disability; court’s reasoning affirming the retaliation verdict; court’s reasoning affirming the failure to accommodate verdict by rejecting defendant’s claim that asthma was not a disability; and thoughts/takeaways. Of course, the reader is free to focus on any or all of the categories.

I

Facts

In 2020, Shelby County hired Edwards as a contact tracer. In December 2020, Shelby County promoted her to the position of environmentalists inspector, which required some nighttime driving. Edward managed the nighttime issues from January to March 2021 but not easily due to her vision impairment that made seeing at night very difficult. Over time, this night vision issue worsened so as to make night driving impractical. For example, the brightness of other cars lights left her unable to see, streetlights and traffic lights blinded her, reading road signs were difficult or impossible, and she could only see off turns from the expressway when she got right next to them. Since this to her mind was not the result of an eye injury or not an eye disease, she did not disclose this condition on her preemployment questionnaire.

Edwards also has asthma and did disclose that in her preemployment physical examination. When she lost access to her prescription temporarily, she had a severe flareup of the asthma where she could not sleep, had extreme difficulty breathing, and even struggled to move from her bedroom to her bathroom. On September 15, 2021, Edwards exhausted and still laboring to breathe, called her manager at 4:30 AM in advance of a shift a few hours later to let her know she was unable to come to work that day. Shelby County had a policy that notification had to be at least one half hour before a person was supposed to come in. Even so, her supervisor demanded that she come into work, and she did go into work that day.

On October 4, 2021, her supervisor reassigned Edwards to a new shift that would involve nighttime driving. Edwards told her supervisor that she had night blindness and would need to drive over 20 miles home in the dark, which raised not only medical but also personal safety concerns as a woman working at night. The morning after her reassignment, her supervisor repeatedly called her to confirm whether she was coming to work that day for her shift. Edward said she would come to work but under protest. In terminating Edwards, Shelby County relied solely on information provided by her supervisor despite the fact that Edwards had no prior disciplinary record for similar or related conduct and nothing being mentioned of Edwards disclosures to her supervisor regarding her night blindness. Edwards offered to provide a Dr.’s note regarding her difficulty driving at night.

Without receiving her right to sue letter, Edwards filed suit on October 5, 2022 for violations of §1983 and the ADA. Once she received the right to sue letter, she filed an amended complaint alleging failure to accommodate her asthma, discrimination based on her night blindness, and retaliation for having requested an accommodation for night blindness. While the District Court dismissed the §1983 claims, it kept in the ADA claims, which proceeded to trial. The jury wound up finding for Edwards on her failure to accommodate claim, disability discrimination claim, and retaliation claim, and Shelby County appealed.

II

Court’s Reasoning Affirming the Disability Discrimination Verdict by Rejecting Defendant’s Claim That Night Blindness Was Not a Disability

1. Disability discrimination rooted in circumstantial evidence follows McDonnell Douglas, which involve showing that: 1) a plaintiff is disabled or regarded as having a disability; 2) a plaintiff is otherwise qualified for the position; 3) a plaintiff suffered an adverse action; 4) her employer knew or had reason to know of her disability; and 5) her position remained open or she was replaced.
2. While it is unclear which of the prongs of the definition of a disability under the ADA the jury applied to Edwards, it doesn’t matter because enough evidence was presented for a reasonable jury to conclude that she had an actual impairment that substantially limited the major life activity.
3. The ADA and its implementing regulations at 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(h)(1), define a physical or mental impairment as including any physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more body systems.
4. The determination of whether a substantial limitation exists is a relative one assessed by comparing the individual’s abilities to those of the general population, 29 C.F.R. 1630.2(j)(1)(ii).
5. The regulations consistent with the Amendments Act clarify that an impairment need not prevent or significantly or severely restrict the performance of a major life activity in order to be considered substantially limiting. In fact, the required level of functional limitation to qualify as an impairment under the ADA is rather low.
6. The regulations, consistent with the amendments to the ADA, caution that the term “major,” is not to be interpreted strictly so we have to create a demanding standard for disability. 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(i)(2).
7. The Amendments Act lowered the threshold for establishing disability by focusing the inquiry more on whether discrimination occurred rather than on whether a plaintiff meets a stringent definitional threshold. The ADA also rejects categorical approaches to disability determinations and favors individualized evaluations of whether an impairment substantially limits a major life activity.
8. While pre-amendment cases went in a completely different direction, the amendments to the ADA mean that the substantial limitation inquiry requires an evaluation of how impairment affects an individual’s daily life compared to the general population per 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(j)(1)(ii). The standard is very generous and need not significantly or severely restrict a major life activity to qualify as substantially limiting. Accordingly, plaintiff’s night blindness could constitute a substantial limitation.
9. Whether driving is by itself a major life activity under the ADA is not the point. One of the requirements of plaintiff’s job was to drive at night. Driving is inherently dependent on the ability to see, and seeing is a major life activity expressly recognized by the ADA. So, the proper focus is on the plaintiff’s impairment substantially limiting her ability to see.
10. In plaintiff’s case, most people can safely navigate, drive, or engage in outdoor activities at night but the plaintiff cannot do that. United States Circuit Courts of Appeals around the country have reached similar conclusions when faced with similar facts. These cases also display an avoidance of categorical rulings about whether night blindness substantially limits a major life activity of a particular individual, and focus instead on how the impairment affect the individual in context. Accordingly, substantial limitations on night vision may serve as strong evidence of a substantial limitation on the major life activity of seeing.
11. The court holds that the jury was not unreasonable in finding based on the evidence presented at trial, that plaintiff’s night blindness constituted a disability insofar as it substantially limited her ability to see.
12. Shelby County’s argument that plaintiff drove sometime does not change the analysis because she drives at night only when she has no alternative, such as when caring for her mother with Alzheimer’s, or needing food, or needing medication. It doesn’t matter in any event because the ADA does not require an individual to be entirely unable to perform a major life activity in order to qualify as a person with a disability. A person who can technically perform an activity, but with difficulty, pain, or risk, may still be substantially limited under the ADA.
13. The relevant question is not whether plaintiff is capable of driving, but whether her condition substantially limits her ability to see, especially under conditions where most people have no difficulty.
14. Whether an individual’s impairment substantially limits a major life activity under the ADA is a fact driven inquiry with credibility determinations lying squarely within the province of the jury.
15. Edwards testified that her night blindness made it difficult to see surrounding traffic in her mirrors, read road signs and exits, and detect barricades. She also described secondary effects, including increased anxiety that interfere with her concentration, particularly after exposure to bright lights. She further explained that during those periods, she struggled to read a restaurant menu. Finally, she testified that her condition had been diagnosed by a doctor, had worsened over time, and impaired the sensory function of her eyes.

III

Court’s Reasoning Affirming the Retaliation Verdict

1. To make a case for retaliation, a plaintiff has to show: 1) she engaged in activity protected under the ADA; 2) her employer knew of that activity; 3) her employer took an adverse action against her; and 4) there was a causal connection between the protected activity and the adverse action.
2. Edwards presented evidence to the jury that she made Shelby County aware of her night blindness and that she otherwise requested accommodations in good faith. She testified that she had informed her supervisor that she could not work the night shift because she can’t see well while driving at night and has night blindness. The jury also heard testimony about her medical history and prior treatment for night blindness, including the description of symptoms and the difficulty she experiences seeing in driving in low light conditions. She further testified that although she occasionally drove at night for work in the past, those instances rarely occurred and typically involves assistance from a coworker and one or two police escorts.
3. On the record, a jury could reasonably conclude that plaintiff’s request was grounded in the concern about her ability to drive safely at night even if it was also concerned about crime and personal safety.
4. The County did not meet its burden of showing that no reasonable jury could have found that Edwards engage in protected activity and was retaliated against for doing so.

IV

Court’s Reasoning Affirming the Failure To Accommodate Verdict by Rejecting Defendant’s Claim That Asthma Was Not a Disability

1. Failure to accommodate claims use the direct evidence test, which means: 1) the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that she is a person with a disability; 2) the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that she is otherwise qualified for the position despite his or her disability: a) without accommodation from the employer; b) with an alleged essential job requirement eliminated; or c) with the proposed reasonable accommodation; and 3) the employer bears the burden of proving that a challenge job criterion is essential, and therefore a business necessity, or that a proposed accommodation imposes an undue hardship upon the employer.
2. The ADA does not require a condition to be permanent or continuously symptomatic in order to qualify as a disability.
3. Impairments that occur episodically or intermittently may still be disabilities if when active, they substantially limit a major life activity. 42 U.S.C. §12102(4)(D).
4. Under the Amendments Act, the inquiry into whether a condition is substantially limited must be made without regard to whether medication can ameliorate the condition. 42 U.S.C. §12102(4)(E)(i).
5. Edward presented sufficient evidence to support the jury’s findings that her asthma impose real limitations on one or more major life activities. She testified that when her asthma was triggered her asthma restricted her ability to breathe, sleep, and walk short distances. Common irritants such as perfumes or smoke predictably provoke asthma attacks forcing her to rely on her rescue inhaler.
6. It is not permissible to impose as Shelby County suggested a higher burden on plaintiff than what the ADA requires, by demanding that Edwards show “severe” limitations or constant symptoms. Such an approach conflicts with the ADA and its implementing regulations, which make clear that a limitation need not be severe—only “substantial.” See, e.g., 29 C.F.R. §1630.2 (j)(1)(ii).
7. The implementing regulations explicitly reject a severity-based standard for disability. The implementing regulations are consistent with the congressional rebuke—in the form of the ADAAA—of “years of court decisions” that applied restrictive and narrow standards in defining “who qualifies as an individual with disabilities.

V

Thoughts/Takeaways.

1. Whether McDonnell Douglas will remain a thing in the future, is a matter of hot debate. See this blog entry.
2. I have seen cases that McDonnell Douglas is not a thing when it comes to trial despite what this decision says as it applies McDonnell Douglas in the context of a trial.
3. Figuring out whether a diagnosis is a disability is, at this decision says, the wrong way to go about it. The question is whether a physical or mental impairment exists that substantially limits one or more major life activities. Focusing on a diagnosis is too narrow. Also, a diagnosis needs to relate to a major life activity and doesn’t stand by itself.
4. The required level of functional limitation to qualify as an impairment after the amendment to the ADA is a low one.
5. The ADA always requires an individualized analysis.
6. I do see attorneys from time to time and even courts rely on pre-amendment cases with respect to determining what a disability is. That is simply a fundamentally flawed approach that is being rejected by the courts in just about all situations, except for the major life activity of working.
7. Defending a case on the grounds that a disability doesn’t exist after the Amendments Act is (with apologies to the Borg of Star Trek), almost always futile, though exceptions do happen.
8. Whether a failure to accommodate claim requires an adverse action, which is not an issue in this case, is also a matter for considerable debate. A strong argument can be made after Muldrow that failure to accommodate cases for all essential purposes do not require an adverse action. See this blog entry.
9. The direct evidence test the court uses with respect to how to go about proving a failure to accommodate claim is a bit hard to decipher. Under the ADA, an employer does not have to eliminate an essential job function. Therefore, the only way to read the direct evidence test posed by the court properly is to say that the plaintiff can argue that they could perform a particular job without one of the essential functions listed in the job description. If the plaintiff makes that argument, it is then up to the employer to prove that the particular function of the job at issue was essential. Any other reading, i.e. suggesting that an employer could eliminate an essential function of the job or has the obligation to, just doesn’t make sense.
10. HR needs to do independent investigations and not just rely on supervisor reports prior to terminating a person.
11. A plaintiff needs a right to sue letter from the EEOC before proceeding in the courts with an employment disability discrimination claim. Whether that right to sue letter can be obtained before the time the EEOC has to complete an investigation of the claim without encountering a failure to exhaust defense is an open question and something to be considered by plaintiff’s counsel at the appropriate time.
12. I know of attorneys on the plaintiff side that prefer not to try their ADA case it to a jury due to the law’s complexity. Such a calculation by plaintiff counsel most certainly depends on a myriad of factors.
13. A request for a disability related reasonable accommodation is still valid even a part of the reason for the request is based upon a non-disability-related concern.
14. The decision is published.