Sitting Disability Cases in the U.S.
While the term “sitting disability” does not appear in the ADA, the act does specify*:
Disability means, with respect to an individual:
(i) A physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual;
It goes on to say:
Major life activities include, but are not limited to:
(i) Caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, sitting, reaching, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, writing, communicating, interacting with others, and working; and
(ii) The operation of a major bodily function, such as the functions of the immune system, special sense organs and skin, normal cell growth, and digestive, genitourinary, bowel, bladder, neurological, brain, respiratory, circulatory, cardiovascular, endocrine, hemic, lymphatic, musculoskeletal, and reproductive systems. The operation of a major bodily function includes the operation of an individual organ within a body system.
*There are actually two sets of regulations, Title II and Title III. The language defining a disability is the same in each.
Since sitting does appear in the list of major life activities, I would expect sitting disabilities to meet the criteria. And at least one federal court seems to agree.
In 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, heard the case of Carmen Parada, a former employee at Banco Industrial de Venezuela, C.A. After working at the bank for about six months, Parada fell and hurt her back. Afterwards, she was unable to sit for long periods of time.
In the months that followed, Parada was involved in a fruitless back-and-forth with the bank about accommodating her inability to sit. This ended in Parada being denied long-term disability benefits and effectively being fired from the bank.
Parada sued for discrimination and retaliation. The district court that first heard her case rejected her claim, noting that the inability to sit was not a disability under the ADA.
The Court of Appeals, however, overturned the district court’s judgement on the discrimination claim (though it upheld the decision on the retaliation claim). It noted that:
If a plaintiff offers evidence that she cannot sit for a prolonged period of time, she may well be disabled under the ADA, depending on her specific factual circumstances. Of course, we recognize that the inability to sit for even an abbreviated period of time…is more likely to be a substantial limitation of a major life activity than is the inability to sit for prolonged periods; few people are able to sit for hours on end without genuine discomfort.
The entire decision is worth a read.
Although this case is heartening, I haven’t been able to find much else in the way of legal support. (Though there are some cases involving disputes with insurance companies.) I’d love to have a solid decision from the Supreme Court of the United States, but if it exists I haven’t found it.
And although I haven’t been through the ADA claim process myself, I’ve heard anecdotes about sitting disability claims being denied. Naturally, only after the supplicant has gone through the bureaucratic nightmare of trying to prove a negative to an emotionally disengaged board that is mostly concerned with saving money.