The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit joined the Seventh Circuit in holding that an individual may suffer an “impairment” under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) due to the disabling effects of a treatment for a condition that is not itself disabling. Ed Sulima, who was diagnosed as morbidly obese with sleep apnea, sued his former employer alleging discriminatory transfer and lay-off based on the negative side effects of his fat-blockers, appetite suppressants, and laxatives. Although his excessive bathroom breaks caused by his weight-loss medication did not render him disabled under the ADA, the Court set forth the circumstances under which side effects may trigger protections under the statute.



The Court expanded the reach of the ADA by holding that the side effects of a treatment for a condition that is not itself disabling may be considered protected “impairments” or “disabling” in cases where the treatment is medically necessary. For claims like Sulima’s, where the alleged impairment is the side effect, courts will analyze whether the treatment plan itself is disabling. For that reason, employers should apply their ADA policies to employees with negative side effects resulting from medically necessary treatment plans without regard to whether their underlying conditions are disabling.

Sulima v. Tobyhanna Army Depot, et al., Case No. 08-4684 (3d Cir. Jan. 29, 2010).