Being deaf in one ear is not a disability, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District Court of Pennsylvania ruled in Mengel v. Reading Eagle Co. (No. 11–6151, 2013 WL 1285477 (E.D. Pa. March 29, 2014)).
While findings of “no disability” were common before the Americans with Disabilities Act was amended, they have been rare since the amendments broadened the definition of “disability.”
In fact, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the agency responsible for enforcing ADA, stated in its implementing regulations that disability determinations should no longer require extensive analysis. EEOC also drafted a list of impairments that it said will almost always be disabilities, which included deafness.
The Mengel court, however, noted that the post-amendments regulations make clear that not every impairment will constitute a disability within the meaning of the ADA. Substantial limitation must still be determined by considering the extent the impairment interferes with major life activities, the court said.
Facts of the Case
The case involved Christine Mengel, a copy editor and page designer for Reading Eagle Co. She regularly received satisfactory performance evaluations but after surgery to remove a brain tumor, she became deaf in one ear and had balance problems and difficulty concentrating. Shortly thereafter, her supervisor complained that she did not follow instructions. When the paper decided to implement layoffs, Mengel was included in the reduction in force.
She sued, alleging disability discrimination in violation of ADA. The Reading Eagle moved for summary judgment, arguing that she didn’t have a disability and therefore could not allege disability discrimination.
The court agreed, finding that her impairment fell short of the “disability” standard — a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of the individual.
“EEOC has determined that ‘deafness substantially limits hearing,’ that hearing is a major life activity, and therefore a deaf person is disabled,” the court noted. “However, Ms. Mengel only provided evidence of hearing loss in one ear rather than bilateral deafness. … she testified that she was still able to hear even though she is deaf in one ear, but that she had difficulty hearing in noisy environments such as the newsroom in which she worked.” She did not mention any specific instances where her hearing loss caused a problem other than she “didn’t hear some things.”
Finding that Mengel’s impairment did not substantially limit her in the major life activity of hearing, the court granted summary judgment for the employer.
Read the full story here.