nt of such disabilities and not to extend the protection of the statute to individuals who through the use of mitigating measures can lead normal lives. The EEOC's Interpretive Guidelines also are internally inconsistent.
Respondent was not disabled at any time prior to the termination of her employment by Petitioner. Her bronchial asthma, while it is a physical impairment, which potentially affects her ability to breathe freely, has been controlled by medication since childhood. Before the recent freak accident with her medication, she has never missed a day of work nor has her performance as a teacher suffered because of her asthma. Not only has her ability to perform her job for Respondent not been substantially limited by her medical condition, her life activities and opportunities as a teacher have not been significantly restricted or limited by her condition. In fact, there is considerable question as to whether her asthma even qualifies as a serious impairment. Respondent has f
...