Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—EEOC urges Third Circuit to revive FedEx worker's ADA claim, argues hemorrhoids can constitute disability, (Sep 11, 2026)

By Brandi O. Brown, J.D.

In this case, the employee’s limitations affected several recognized major life activities, the agency argued, including walking, standing, sitting, and bowel and digestive functions.

The EEOC has urged the Third Circuit to revive a former FedEx Supply Chain supervisor's disability discrimination claim, arguing that a lower court applied an overly restrictive view of what qualifies as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

In an amicus brief filed this week, the EEOC backed a FedEx employee in his challenge to a district court’s decision to grant summary judgment to FedEx Supply Chain Inc., contending that a reasonable jury could find that the employee’s chronic hemorrhoids condition substantially limited major life activities and therefore qualified as a disability under federal law. The agency asked the Third Circuit to vacate the district court's ruling and remand the case for further proceedings.

Significant pain or difficulty. The EEOC framed the appeal as an important test of how courts should evaluate disability status under the ADA following the 2008 amendments to the statute (ADAAA). According to the agency, the central legal question is whether an impairment may constitute a disability when, during periods in which it is active (per the ADAAA), it causes significant pain or difficulty in performing major life activities.

In this case, an operations supervisor at a FedEx warehouse alleged that FedEx terminated him because of his hemorrhoids condition and related medical leave. The company maintains that it fired him based on performance and misconduct issues and unsuccessful completion of a performance improvement plan.

District court said no disability. However, the district court never reached those competing explanations. Instead, it dismissed the employee’s ADA discrimination claim after concluding that he could not establish the threshold element that he had a disability. Specifically, the court found that no reasonable jury could determine that his hemorrhoids substantially limited his ability to sit, stand, or pass bowel movements.

Not consistent with ADAAA. The EEOC's brief focuses heavily on that conclusion, arguing that it conflicts with both the text and purpose of the ADA as amended by the ADAAA. According to the agency, Congress enacted the ADAAA specifically to broaden coverage and reject judicial decisions that had narrowly interpreted the term "substantially limits." The amendments instruct courts to construe the definition of disability "in favor of broad coverage" and to avoid demanding extensive analysis of whether an impairment qualifies.

Pain and difficulty. Against that backdrop, the EEOC argues that an employee need not show that an impairment completely prevents a major life activity. Rather, an impairment may be substantially limiting if it causes difficulty, additional effort, or pain when performing the activity compared with most people in the general population. The brief points to EEOC regulations and appellate decisions recognizing that individuals who can technically perform an activity, but only with pain or difficulty, may still be substantially limited within the meaning of the ADA.

That principle is particularly important in cases involving episodic conditions, the agency says. The ADA expressly provides that impairments that are episodic or in remission must be evaluated based on how they affect an individual when active. As a result, the EEOC argues, courts should not discount a condition simply because its symptoms fluctuate over time.

Employee’s evidence was sufficient for jury. Applying that standard, the agency contends that the employee presented sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that his hemorrhoids constituted a disability. He testified that flare-ups caused painful bowel movements and bleeding. He also said he experienced pain while sitting, standing, and walking. At times, the pain prevented him from sitting on hard surfaces, requiring the use of a donut pillow. On other occasions, he was confined to bed rest. He also testified that he sometimes avoided eating to reduce the pain associated with bowel movements, resulting in weight loss. He also stated that the pain occasionally became severe enough that he had to leave work in the middle of the day.

Those limitations affected several recognized major life activities, the agency argued, including walking, standing, sitting, bowel functions, and digestive functions. A reasonable jury, the agency says, could readily conclude that most people do not experience painful rectal bleeding, substantial pain while sitting or walking, or other comparable symptoms when performing those activities.

Not across-the-board. Importantly, the EEOC stresses that its position does not mean every person with hemorrhoids is automatically disabled under the ADA. Disability determinations remain individualized and depend on the extent to which a condition limits major life activities, it noted. The agency's argument is that this employee produced enough evidence regarding the severity and impact of his symptoms to allow a jury to decide the issue.

How much pain or difficulty? While the EEOC acknowledged that a question remained regarding whether the degree of difficulty or pain an individual experiences must exceed some minimal threshold to be considered substantially limiting, it noted that the appeals court need not resolve that question in this case because a reasonable jury could find that the degree of difficulty and pain the employee experienced was, by any reasonable measure, enough to be substantially limiting. Thus, the court did not need to “determine whether there is a minimal threshold or, if so, where its lower limits lie.”

Because the district court resolved the case solely on the disability question, the EEOC urged the Third Circuit not to decide the remaining elements of the employee’s discrimination claim itself. Instead, the agency asked the appellate court to vacate the judgment and send the case back so the lower court can address the unresolved issues.

The case is No. 26-1729.

News: LitigationNewsTrends AgencyNews DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination