The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled a former employee at a Sam's Club warehouse store in Pittsburgh developed a disability covered by the law when she lost most kidney function as a result of end-stage renal disease. As a result of her illness the worker needed to undergo frequent dialysis treatments to clean waste from her bloodstream. The woman filed suit after the company refused to allow her to self-administer part of her dialysis treatment on store property, a step she said was necessary if she was to continue working. The company fired the woman when she was unable to return from a yearlong medical leave. In her suit, the worker claimed Wal-Mart, the parent company of Sam's Club, had failed to abide by the Americans With Disabilities Act requiring companies to reasonably accommodate workers with disabilities. A U.S. District Court judge ruled in favor of the company, agreeing with Wal-Mart's lawyers that the woman's disease had not left her "significantly limited in a major life activity." The 3rd Circuit overturned that ruling. The case will now return to a lower court for further action before a final ruling is entered.

In the case of Edward Williams v Philadelphia Housing Authority (PHA) the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a person "regarded as" being disabled is entitled to consideration for reasonable accommodation(s) through the informal interactive process. Edward Williams worked as a police officer for PHA who was relieved of duty after making threats to a superior officer in response to a reprimand for a work related violation. Mr. Williams also stated to a counselor he understood why a person would go "postal". In response to these comments, the counselor recommended that Mr. Williams be reassigned to another position that would not require him to carry a weapon for a minimum of 3 months. PHA failed to reassign Mr. Williams to a position that would not require him to carry a weapon or enter into the "informal interactive" process to determine if he could be reasonably accommodated. PHA recommended he take a medical leave of absence. When Mr. Williams did not respond to this offer, PHA fired him. Mr. Williams sued PHA claiming his termination was retaliation for requesting reassignment as an accommodation under the ADA. The District Court ruled in favor of PHA stating that Mr. Williams did not meet the definition of disability as defined by the ADA. The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that in cases of retaliation a person did not in fact have to be disabled to be covered by the ADA.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's January 2003 decision in favor of plaintiffs who sued Sandusky and the city manager for violations of the ADA. The plaintiffs' 1999 lawsuit said the city should have made curb cuts when it replaced or repaired sidewalks and curbs. A three-judge appeals panel upheld U.S. District Judge James Carr's ruling that the city violated the ADA when it failed to incorporate accessible features into new sidewalk construction.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that an employee who failed to mention a previous injury on a medical questionnaire was terminated not for filing a workers' compensation claim but because he lied during the hiring process. In applying for employment with Tennant Company, Kevin Carter completed a health history questionnaire that inquired about his prior work-related injuries and medical care. Carter failed to list a previous work-related back injury. Tennant did not discover that omission until Carter filed for workers' compensation benefits after "re-aggravating" the injury while working for Tennant. Carter was fired shortly thereafter. Carter filed suit against his employer, claiming he was discharged in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim and that the questionnaire violated the Illinois Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act. The district court granted summary judgment for Tennant, and the 7th Circuit affirmed. The court held Carter's dishonest answers to the health questionnaire provided a valid reason for Tennant's decision to discharge him. As to the privacy claim, the court held that the questionnaire did not violate the Privacy Act because it did not ask if claims had been filed or if benefits had been received, but rather if Carter had ever had any work-related injuries and if he had ever lost time or seen a physician for any work-related injuries.