McDonough v. Donahoe, 673 F.3d 41

McDonough, a USPS letter carrier since 1980, sustained back/neck injuries and received workers' compensation, working four hours daily with accommodations.
In 2003–2004 a medical report suggested she could work four-to-five hours; USPS offered a four- to five-hour modified assignment which she did not sign.
In 2004–2005 McDonough faced multiple alleged harassment incidents related to her disability; EEOC investigation followed.
McDonough pursued administrative remedies, including ALJ proceedings; summary judgment in favor of USPS was entered in 2006 and affirmed on appeal.
McDonough then filed suit (Dec. 22, 2008) asserting Rehabilitation Act claims for disability harassment and retaliation; district court granted summary judgment for USPS on all later-reduced claims, and she appeals.
This appeal concerns only the disability-based hostile work environment claim under the Rehabilitation Act and whether she was disabled or regarded as disabled.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether McDonough was disabled under the Rehabilitation Act	McDonough was impaired and her back/neck limitations substantially limited major life activities	McDonough could perform her job with accommodations; no substantial limits shown	No; she failed to prove a disability under the Act
Whether USPS regarded McDonough as disabled	Questioned by FECA/workers' comp status and reduced hours show regard-as-disabled	FECA disability is broader; four-hour day shows accommodation, not regard-as-disabled	No; record shows USPS did not regard her as disabled

Rolland v. Potter, 492 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2007) (defining disability under Rehabilitation Act; major life activities)
Ramos-Echevarría v. Pichis, Inc., 659 F.3d 182 (1st Cir. 2011) (three-part disability analysis; strict interpretation")
Toyota Motor Mfg. Ky., Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (Supreme Court 2002) (limits on the scope of 'major life activities' and 'substantially limits')
Quiles-Quiles v. Henderson, 439 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2006) (assumed viability of disability harassment claim for purposes of analysis)
Gillen v. Fallon Ambulance Service, Inc., 283 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2002) (lifting limitations alone not a disability)
Neal v. Kraft Foods Global, Inc., 379 Fed.Appx. 632 (9th Cir. 2010) (standing/walking limitations insufficient to prove disability)
Ruiz Rivera v. Pfizer Pharm., LLC, 521 F.3d 76 (1st Cir. 2008) (regarded-as-disabled analysis; broad-range impairment notion)
Prescott v. Higgins, 538 F.3d 32 (1st Cir. 2008) (pregnant discussion of 'substantially limits' standards)
Dupre v. Charter Behavioral Health Sys. of Lafayette Inc., 242 F.3d 610 (5th Cir. 2001) (lifting restrictions not itself a substantial limitation)