Specifically, under the ADAAA, “the term ‘substantially limits’ [is to be] interpreted and applied to require a degree of functional limitation that is lower than the standard for ‘substantially limits’ applied prior to the ADAAA.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630.20(j) (iv)). The issue of whether or not a hernia may qualify as a disability under the ADA, and parallel state laws, after the 2008 amendments is now an open question, with several federal district courts finding that it does qualify. See e.g. Bob-Maunuel v. Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc., 10 F.Supp.3d 854, 881 (N.D.Ill.2014)(finding that Plaintiffs hernia constituted a disability that substantially limited the major life activity of lifting); Butler v. BTC Foods, Inc., No. CIV. A. 12-0492, 2014 WL 336649, at *4 (E.D.Pa. Jan. 30, 2014)(<HOLDING>). However, at least one federal court has found
holding that a verified complaint is treated as an affidavit for summary judgment purposes and considered in determining whether material issues of fact exist holding that opting for conservative treatment instead of surgery is not substantial evidence that the claimant was not disabled holding that plaintiff established for purposes of summary judgment a material question as to whether he was disabled because of hernia surgery holding summary judgment was not warranted because material facts were in dispute holding that summary judgment against plaintiff was premature because determination of whether plaintiff was a trespasser invitee or licensee was question of fact