The U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part a district court ruling that an employers' policy requiring employees to provide a general diagnosis from a medical care provider stating an employee can return to work violates the ADA. Deborah Conroy a person with asthma and severe pulmonary obstructive disease worked as a corrections officer for the state of New York. She took leave in order to address issues related to her impairments. To return to work the Department of Corrections requires employees to provide a general diagnosis from a medical care provider that they can return and assume their job duties. She claimed that the Department's policy requiring a certification containing a general diagnosis violated the ADA's prohibition against an employer making inquiries about an employee's medical condition or disabilities. The district court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and denied the Department's summary judgment motion. The Court of Appeals reversed on the issue of whether the Department had raised a genuine issue of material fact with respect to the business necessity defense available under the ADA. The court reasoned that employers have an important safety interest to ensure that employees who were too ill to work are now sufficiently healthy to return and can perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation.

The U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that an employer's voluntary provision of accommodations for an employee with arthritis and other conditions did not establish that the employee was "regarded as disabled," for purpose of the employee's ADA claim. The Court reasoned that an employer could try to help an employee with health problems without knowing or caring whether the employee's condition met the statutory ADA definition. Also, an employer could provide accommodations in response to state laws, local regulations, or collective bargaining agreements. Connie Cigan worked as a special education teacher for the Chippewa Falls school system for 30 years. The school district accommodated Ms. Cigan over the years after she developed a number of impairments. In 2003 the principal of her school informed her that he would recommend to the board that her contract would not be renewed. Ms. Cigan filed suit under the ADA claiming that she was forced into retirement and she had standing under the ADA because she was "regarded" as being a person with a disability. The Court did not agree with her claim and stated that employee failed to show that the employer was concerned about the employee's possible disability under the ADA when it provided the accommodations.

The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a district court's granting of summary judgment to the University of Minnesota on the grounds that the student did not present evidence that he was in fact a "qualified person with a disability." Christopher Falcone was admitted to the University of Minnesota Medical School, he advised the University's Disability Services Office that he has learning disabilities and was accommodated. After failing three clinical courses he was dismissed from the program. Mr. Falcone then filed suit against the university, claiming the dismissal violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. He claimed that though he was accommodated the accommodations were provided inconsistently. Specifically Mr. Falcone requested access to weekly feedback sessions and stated that this accommodation would have made the difference in his passing some of his courses. The University did not dispute that Mr. Falcone was in fact a person with a disability. The University defended the dismissal stating that objective information supported their belief that Mr. Falcone lacked the analytical reasoning ability necessary to be a successful student and could not complete the course work with or without accommodations.

The U.S. 9th District Court of Northern California ruled that United Parcel Service (UPS) violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by requiring successful applicants for all driving positions to satisfy the U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT) hearing requirements despite the fact that DOT certification was not an essential job function in all the positions applicants applied for. In a class action law suit brought by Eric Bates, an individual with a hearing impairment, claimed that UPS's use of the DOT hearing test for driver certification to operate vehicles that weigh 10,001 lbs or more precludes a hearing impaired applicant from consideration as a package-car driver. These vehicles weigh less than 10,001 and are excluded from the DOT certification standards for larger vehicles. UPS argued that the decision not to hire the deaf employees was valid because DOT certification was an essential job function of the positions. UPS further claimed that the deaf employees were unable to communicate effectively with the public and to drive safely, both essential job functions of the package-car driving position. The district court rejected UPS' justifications for denying the otherwise qualified employees the non-regulated driving positions because they were deaf. It found that DOT certification was not an essential job function of package-car drivers and also determined that UPS had never analyzed whether deaf drivers ineffectively communicated with the public and to what extent hearing is necessary to be a safe driver. The court held that UPS was unable to demonstrate that qualified individuals who did not pass the DOT hearing test could not perform the essential duties of the package-car driving position. Subsequent to this ruling UPS was granted a stay pending an appeal of the district courts decision.