United States: Second Circuit Rules "Interacting With Others" is a Major Life Activity

Originally published June 2005

Recently, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in Jacques v. DiMarzio, Inc., held that "interacting with others" is a major life activity under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Audrey Jacques worked for DiMarzio, Inc., an electric guitar manufacturer, as a packager and assembler of guitar components in DiMarzio's Staten Island, NY factory for seven years until she was terminated in 1996. Ms. Jacques suffered from psychiatric problems for over forty years, including a severe depression disorder for which she took medication. She first informed her employer of her condition in 1992. By early 1996, Ms. Jacques' working relationship with her superiors had become "poisonous" because she was prone to confrontations and intolerant of ethnic minorities in the workplace. As a result, Ms. Jacques' direct supervisor felt obliged to treat her "with kid gloves" so as not to upset her. DiMarzio ultimately terminated Ms. Jacques due to her ongoing conflicts with her supervisors and co-workers. Ms. Jacques filed a complaint against the company, claiming she had been discriminated against in violation of the ADA because DiMarzio "regarded" her as having a mental impairment that substantially limited her ability to interact with others.

The district court instructed the jury that an impairment causing "a perceived demeanor of hostility and social withdrawal" gave rise to protection under the ADA for employees "regarded as" disabled. The Second Circuit held, however, that the district court used the wrong legal standard in its jury instruction concerning the showing a plaintiff must make to be considered "substantially limited" in the "major life activity" of "interacting with others."

The Court first took up the issue of whether "interacting with others" is even a major life activity under the ADA. This issue has proven divisive as the First Circuit Court of Appeals has held that "getting along with others" is not a major life activity under the ADA, whereas the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has determined that "interacting with others" is a major life activity under the ADA. The Second Circuit agreed both with the First Circuit's finding that the ability to "get[] along with others" is an unworkably subjective definition of a major life activity, and with the Ninth Circuit's finding that "interacting with others" is an essential function that meets the definition of major life activity. However, the Second Circuit disagreed with the Ninth Circuit's test for determining when a limitation on the activity of interaction with others is "substantial" for ADA purposes. According to the Ninth Circuit, an impairment of the ability to interact with others is substantial when it is "characterized on a regular basis by severe problems" such as "consistently high levels of hostility, social withdrawal, or failure to communicate when necessary." This test - the wording of which the district court's jury instruction tracked - was deemed unworkable by the Second Circuit because it frustrated the maintenance of a civil workplace environment. Rather, the Second Circuit held that an individual is substantially limited in the major life activity of interacting with others when a "mental or physical impairment severely limits the fundamental ability to communicate with others." This standard is met "when the impairment severely limits the [individual's] ability to connect with others, i.e., to initiate contact with other people and respond to them, or to go among other people." The Court made it a point to note that a substantial limitation does not exist where the employee is fully capable of communicating his or her thoughts but does so in a manner that is "inappropriate, ineffective, or unsuccessful."

The Second Circuit's decision in Jacques means employers must learn to distinguish between employees whose highly irritable and disagreeable personalities make communication difficult or contentious and those who suffer from conditions, such as depression, autism, or agoraphobia (to list only a few), that hinder or prevent communication altogether. Although employers are not prevented from terminating employees who are hostile, confrontational or antagonistic, they must make reasonable accommodations for employees who are isolated by an inability to interact with others, but are otherwise able to perform the essential functions of a job.