## Facts

- Carl Summers worked for Altarum Institute as a senior analyst supporting a federal client; the role generally required regular on-site work, with some remote work permitted in limited circumstances.
- While commuting to the client site, Summers fell and suffered serious injuries to both legs, including fractures and tendon damage, requiring multiple surgeries.
- Physicians barred him from weight-bearing on one leg for six weeks and estimated he would not walk normally for at least seven months; Summers alleged the impairment could have lasted more than a year without treatment.
- While hospitalized, Summers contacted human resources about short-term disability and possible accommodations and proposed a graduated return-to-work plan beginning with disability leave and transitioning to part-time remote work, then full-time.
- Altarum obtained short-term disability benefits for Summers but, about six weeks after the accident, terminated him effective December 1, 2011 to staff the client contract with a replacement.
- Summers sued under the ADA, as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA), alleging wrongful discharge based on disability and failure to accommodate; on appeal he challenged only dismissal of the wrongful-discharge claim.

## Issues

1. Whether, under the ADAAA, a severe impairment expected to last several months may qualify as a “disability” despite being temporary.
2. Whether Summers plausibly alleged an ADAAA disability and therefore stated a wrongful-discharge claim sufficient to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit reversed the dismissal and remanded.
- The court held that, under the ADAAA and EEOC regulations, an impairment is not excluded from the definition of disability solely because it is temporary.
- Summers’s alleged inability to walk normally for at least seven months, following multiple surgeries and a period of complete non-weight-bearing, plausibly constituted a disability because it substantially limited the major life activity of walking.
- At the pleading stage, the question was plausibility, not proof; dismissal based on a categorical “temporary impairment” rule was improper after the ADAAA.

## Legal Principles

- The ADAAA requires “disability” and “substantially limits” to be construed broadly in favor of coverage.
- A sufficiently severe temporary impairment can be a disability if it substantially limits a major life activity.
- Walking is a “major life activity,” and substantial limitation turns on functional impact and severity, not duration alone.
- On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a plaintiff need only plausibly allege a qualifying impairment and adverse action because of disability; fact disputes about the extent of limitation generally are not resolved at the pleading stage.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit held that the ADAAA rejects a categorical rule that temporary impairments are not disabilities, and that Summers plausibly alleged a disability based on severe leg injuries substantially limiting walking; his wrongful-discharge claim was reinstated for further proceedings.


Summers v. Altarum Inst. Corp., 740 F.3d 325 (4th Cir. 2014)