Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—6th Cir.: Jury could reasonably find county employee’s night blindness was a disability, (Nov 10, 2025)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

“To be clear, night blindness is not a disability per se.”

Concurring in the approach of three sister circuits, the Sixth Circuit found a county health department employee who suffered from night blindness and who had to drive over 20 miles home in the dark after the end of her shift presented sufficient evidence for a jury to reasonably find her night blindness qualified as a disability under the ADA insofar as it substantially limited her ability to see. Affirming the district court’s entry of judgment on her retaliation claim as well, the court found a jury could reasonably conclude her request for an accommodation was grounded in a concern about her ability to drive safely at night even if she was also concerned about her personal safety. Nor was the jury unreasonable in concluding that her asthma was a disability under the ADA’s individualized-assessment framework (Edwards v. Shelby County, Tennessee, No. 24-5730 (6th Cir. Nov. 7, 2025)).

Hired in July 2020 as a contact tracer during the COVID-19 pandemic, the county employee was promoted in December to environmentalist inspector, which required her to do some nighttime driving. Although she struggled with night blindness, which she had not disclosed when she was hired, she made several nighttime inspection trips between January and March 2021, often following a sheriff’s deputy who would escort her between sites.

Unsafe. After the county ended its COVID inspection protocol in March 2021, the employee was reassigned in August to a care coordination team where she worked under a new manager delivering food and groceries to individuals in COVID quarantine at a hotel, many of whom were homeless. The employee believed the hotel was unsafe, especially for a woman working alone at night. She also worried about the 20-mile commute home.

Asthma attack. In September, she experienced a severe asthma flare-up during the night in which she had extreme difficulty breathing. Although she called her manager at 4:30 a.m. to say she would not be able to come in that day for her 8:30 a.m. shift as she was still laboring to breathe, her manager told her it was too late to find a replacement and she needed to be there.

Reassigned. In October, the employee was reassigned to a solo shift from 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. at the hotel. She immediately objected, telling her manager she had night blindness and would need to drive over 20 miles home in the dark at night. She also raised safety concerns as a woman working alone at night. She showed up for her new shift under protest and in an email to her manager, stated that she “needed help.”

Termination. Even before her first shift, her manager began working to have the employee removed from her team, complaining about her tardiness and unwillingness to go to the hotel. The county authorized a schedule change for the employee such that her shift would be from 10:30 a.m. to 7:30 p.m. One day after that, the manager asked about initiating a disciplinary process against the employee and she was fired shortly thereafter for insubordination, attendance, and falsification of information based on her claims of criminal activity at the hotel.

She sued under the ADA, asserting claims for failure-to-accommodate, retaliation, and disability discrimination and a jury found in her favor on all three claims. The county appealed, arguing that the employee was not disabled under the ADA and the evidence did not support the jury’s verdict.

Disability discrimination. Turning first to the county’s argument that night blindness is not a legally cognizable disability under the ADA, the Sixth Circuit noted that it had not yet issued a binding opinion on this question. Although the county pointed to the court’s unpublished decision in Wade v. General Motor’s Corp., in which the appeals court found that vision problems affecting night driving did not qualify as a disability, that was superseded by the ADAAA, which substantially broadened the definition of disability and explicitly rejected the narrower approach of cases like Wade. Following the ADAAA, said the court, an impairment need not “significantly or severely restrict” a major life activity to qualify as substantially limiting.

Ability to see. As to the county’s argument that driving is not, standing alone, a major life activity under the ADA, the court noted that driving is dependent on the ability to see, which is a major life activity, and thus the focus is whether the employee’s impairment substantially limits her ability to see. “Framing the issue in this way,” said the court, “aligns with how other circuits have resolved similar cases.” Citing cases from the Second, Third, and Ninth Circuits, the court observed that they not only “support the proposition that substantial limitations on night vision may serve as strong evidence of a substantial impairment to the major life activity of seeing,” they “also display an avoidance of categorical rulings about whether night blindness ‘substantially limits’ plaintiffs, and a preference for assessing how the impairment affects the individual in context.”

Agreeing with this approach, the court found that the employee introduced sufficient evidence for the jury reasonably to have found her night blindness qualified as a disability. Clarifying that night blindness is not a disability per se, the court explained that it was simply holding that the jury was not unreasonable in finding, based on the evidence presented at trial, that the employee’s night blindness constituted a disability insofar as it substantially limited her ability to see.

While the county argued that the employee could not be considered disabled because she can and does drive at night, the court noted that she testified she has driven on occasion after dark to care for her mother, who has Alzheimer’s, or to get food or medicine, and there was no other alternative. Further, the court observed, courts have recognized that individuals who can technically perform an activity, but with difficulty, pain, or risk, may still be substantially limited and, as already noted, “the Second, Third, and Ninth Circuits have recognized that individuals whose vision-related impairments make night driving unsafe in most conditions may be substantially limited in the major life activity of seeing.” Thus, that the employee occasionally drives at night should not preclude a finding of disability.

Explaining that whether an individual’s impairment “substantially limits” a major life activity under the ADA is a fact-driven inquiry, the court noted that here, the jury heard testimony the employee’s night blindness made it difficult to see surrounding traffic in her mirrors, read road signs and exits, and detect barricades and she experienced heightened anxiety that interfered with her concentration, particularly after exposure to bright lights. This evidence, said the court, was not so lacking or so one-sided that no reasonable jury could find in her favor.

Retaliation. As to the employee’s retaliation claim, the county argued that her request for an accommodation was not made in good faith because she was really concerned about crime, not night blindness. In support, it pointed to an email she sent after her reassignment in which she expressed concerns about working alone at night in an area she described as involving “drug dealing, prostitution and other violent crimes.” Though she did not mention her night blindness in that particular email, she testified at trial that the day before sending the email, she told her manager she could not work the night shift because her night blindness made it difficult to see while driving at night.

There was also evidence regarding her prior treatment for night blindness and the difficulties she experiences seeing and driving in low-light conditions. On this record, said the court, “a jury could reasonably conclude that [the employee’s] request was grounded in a concern about her ability to drive safely at night, even if she was also concerned about crime and personal safety.”

Failure to accommodate. Finally, the county, challenging the jury’s conclusion that it failed to accommodate the employee’s asthma, argued that her asthma did not qualify as a disability because it did not rise to the level of a substantial limitation. The incident underlying her claim, the county stressed, occurred on just one day and happened because she had run out of medication.

But “impairments that occur episodically or intermittently may still constitute disabilities if, when active, they substantially limit a major life activity,” said the court, and “under the ADAAA, the inquiry into whether a condition is substantially limiting must be made without regard to whether medication can ameliorate the condition.” Accordingly, the court rejected the county’s attempt to disqualify her asthma because it is episodic and usually managed with medication.

In addition, the court found sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that her asthma imposed real limitations on one or more major life activities. Specifically, there was evidence her asthma, when triggered, restricts her ability to breathe, sleep, and even walk short distances and that exposure to common irritants such as perfumes or smoke predictably provokes asthma attacks, forcing her to rely on her rescue inhaler. The evidentiary record, said the court, provided sufficient support for the conclusion that the employee’s asthma imposes substantial limitations that entitle her to ADA protection.

Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court’s entry of judgment on the employee’s disability discrimination, retaliation, and failure-to-accommodate claim.

The case is No. 24-5730.

Judge: Bush, J.

Attorneys: E. Lee Whitwell for Shelby County, Tennessee. Steven G. Wilson (The Steven Wilson Firm) and Matthew C. Gulotta (The Gulotta Firm) for Rebecca Edwards.

Cases: DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge Retaliation KentuckyNews MichiganNews OhioNews TennesseeNews GCNNews