X hits on this document





16 / 26

substantially limited in his ability to walk during the flare-ups of his psoriatic arthritis. See EEOC v. Phillips Chem. Co., 570 F.3d 606, 620 (5th Cir. 2009) (“Individuals who take medication or use corrective devices to lessen an impairment but still remain substantially limited as to one or more major life activities are still disabled under the ADA.”)

Argument (4) is the product of selective quotation. In its opinion, the district court stated that “Mr. Carmona testified he was able to live by himself without assistance, take care of himself, read, drive, ride his bike, shop, cook, walk, and stand, most of the time.” Southwest took this a step further in its brief, omitting “most of the time” and stating that “[Carmona] is able to drive, read, ride his bike, go shopping, and cook, and lives by himself and is able to care for himself.” Carmona’s actual testimony was that:

“ Q. [By Counsel for Southwest] Do you still live by yourself?

  • A.

    [By Carmona] Yes, I do.

  • Q.

    And you were able to take care of yourself, correct?

  • A.

    For the most part, yes.

  • Q.

    You were able to read, to drive, to ride your bike, and shop

and cook?

  • A.

    On good days, yes, ma’am.

  • Q.

    And most of the time, you’re able to walk and stand, correct?

  • A.

    On good days, yes, ma’am.” (Emphasis added.)

Every one of Carmona’s responses was qualified in a manner that was consistent with the rest of his testimony. Nothing in this testimony refuted his claim that his periodic flare-ups of psoriatic arthritis substantially limited his ability to walk.

Argument (5), that Carmona’s evidence of disability was undermined by his admission that he had not missed any work because of his condition while he was employed by Jet Blue or Dillard’s, has more merit. It seems strange that an employee who was medically excused from work for up to fifteen days


Document info
Document views77
Page views77
Page last viewedTue Jan 17 18:10:32 UTC 2017