42 U.S.C. § 12112 – Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): Discrimination Prohibited
Table of Contents
Code Details
42 USC 12112: Discrimination
Text contains those laws in effect on August 27, 2025
From Title 42-THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE
CHAPTER 126-EQUAL OPPORTUNITY FOR INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES
SUBCHAPTER I-EMPLOYMENT
Exact Statute Text
Click to view the complete statute text
No covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment.(b) Construction
As used in subsection(a), the term “discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability” includes-(1) limiting, segregating, or classifying a job applicant or employee in a way that adversely affects the opportunities or status of such applicant or employee because of the disability of such applicant or employee;
(2) participating in a contractual or other arrangement or relationship that has the effect of subjecting a covered entity’s qualified applicant or employee with a disability to the discrimination prohibited by this subchapter (such relationship includes a relationship with an employment or referral agency, labor union, an organization providing fringe benefits to an employee of the covered entity, or an organization providing training and apprenticeship programs);
(3) utilizing standards, criteria, or methods of administration-
(A) that have the effect of discrimination on the basis of disability; or
(B) that perpetuate the discrimination of others who are subject to common administrative control;
(4) excluding or otherwise denying equal jobs or benefits to a qualified individual because of the known disability of an individual with whom the qualified individual is known to have a relationship or association;
(5)(A) not making reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee, unless such covered entity can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business of such covered entity; or
(B) denying employment opportunities to a job applicant or employee who is an otherwise qualified individual with a disability, if such denial is based on the need of such covered entity to make reasonable accommodation to the physical or mental impairments of the employee or applicant;
(6) using qualification standards, employment tests or other selection criteria that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability or a class of individuals with disabilities unless the standard, test or other selection criteria, as used by the covered entity, is shown to be job-related for the position in question and is consistent with business necessity; and
(7) failing to select and administer tests concerning employment in the most effective manner to ensure that, when such test is administered to a job applicant or employee who has a disability that impairs sensory, manual, or speaking skills, such test results accurately reflect the skills, aptitude, or whatever other factor of such applicant or employee that such test purports to measure, rather than reflecting the impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills of such employee or applicant (except where such skills are the factors that the test purports to measure).
(c) Covered entities in foreign countries
(1) In general
It shall not be unlawful under this section for a covered entity to take any action that constitutes discrimination under this section with respect to an employee in a workplace in a foreign country if compliance with this section would cause such covered entity to violate the law of the foreign country in which such workplace is located.
(2) Control of corporation
(A) Presumption
If an employer controls a corporation whose place of incorporation is a foreign country, any practice that constitutes discrimination under this section and is engaged in by such corporation shall be presumed to be engaged in by such employer.
(B) Exception
This section shall not apply with respect to the foreign operations of an employer that is a foreign person not controlled by an American employer.
(C) Determination
For purposes of this paragraph, the determination of whether an employer controls a corporation shall be based on-
(i) the interrelation of operations;
(ii) the common management;
(iii) the centralized control of labor relations; and
(iv) the common ownership or financial control,
of the employer and the corporation.
(d) Medical examinations and inquiries
(1) In general
The prohibition against discrimination as referred to in subsection (a) shall include medical examinations and inquiries.
(2) Preemployment
(A) Prohibited examination or inquiry
Except as provided in paragraph (3), a covered entity shall not conduct a medical examination or make inquiries of a job applicant as to whether such applicant is an individual with a disability or as to the nature or severity of such disability.
(B) Acceptable inquiry
A covered entity may make preemployment inquiries into the ability of an applicant to perform job-related functions.
(3) Employment entrance examination
A covered entity may require a medical examination after an offer of employment has been made to a job applicant and prior to the commencement of the employment duties of such applicant, and may condition an offer of employment on the results of such examination, if-
(A) all entering employees are subjected to such an examination regardless of disability;
(B) information obtained regarding the medical condition or history of the applicant is collected and maintained on separate forms and in separate medical files and is treated as a confidential medical record, except that-
(i) supervisors and managers may be informed regarding necessary restrictions on the work or duties of the employee and necessary accommodations;
(ii) first aid and safety personnel may be informed, when appropriate, if the disability might require emergency treatment; and
(iii) government officials investigating compliance with this chapter shall be provided relevant information on request; and
(C) the results of such examination are used only in accordance with this subchapter.
(4) Examination and inquiry
(A) Prohibited examinations and inquiries
A covered entity shall not require a medical examination and shall not make inquiries of an employee as to whether such employee is an individual with a disability or as to the nature or severity of the disability, unless such examination or inquiry is shown to be job-related and consistent with business necessity.
(B) Acceptable examinations and inquiries
A covered entity may conduct voluntary medical examinations, including voluntary medical histories, which are part of an employee health program available to employees at that work site. A covered entity may make inquiries into the ability of an employee to perform job-related functions.
(C) Requirement
Information obtained under subparagraph (B) regarding the medical condition or history of any employee are subject to the requirements of subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (3).
42 U.S.C. § 12112 Summary
This federal law, a key section of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), establishes a fundamental rule: employers cannot discriminate against individuals with disabilities in the workplace. It applies to “covered entities,” which generally include employers, employment agencies, labor organizations, and joint labor-management committees. The protection extends to “qualified individuals with disabilities,” meaning people who can perform the essential functions of a job, with or without reasonable accommodation. The types of discrimination prohibited are broad, covering every aspect of employment from applying for a job, hiring, promotion, pay, training, and firing.
The statute details various ways discrimination can manifest, such as isolating employees due to their disability, failing to provide reasonable accommodations unless doing so would cause “undue hardship” to the business, using biased tests or selection criteria, or discriminating against someone because of their association with a person with a disability. It also sets clear rules for medical examinations and inquiries. Generally, employers cannot ask about a disability before making a job offer, but they can inquire about an applicant’s ability to perform job functions. Post-offer medical exams are allowed under strict conditions, including confidentiality and uniform application. Similarly, current employees’ medical inquiries must be job-related and consistent with business necessity. The law also addresses the application of these rules to employers operating in foreign countries.
Purpose of 42 U.S.C. § 12112
The legislative intent behind this section of the Americans with Disabilities Act is to ensure equal opportunity and combat discrimination against individuals with disabilities in employment. Before the ADA, many qualified individuals faced significant barriers to entering and advancing in the workforce, not due to their lack of skill or ability, but because of unfounded biases, stereotypes, or inaccessible workplaces. This provision aims to dismantle those barriers by requiring employers to evaluate job candidates and employees based on their qualifications and performance, rather than their disability. It seeks to integrate people with disabilities into mainstream society and the economy, promoting their independence and productivity. By prohibiting discrimination and mandating reasonable accommodations, the statute addresses the societal problem of exclusion and promotes a more inclusive and equitable work environment nationwide.
Real-World Example of 42 U.S.C. § 12112
Consider the situation of Sarah, a talented graphic designer who uses a wheelchair due to a spinal cord injury. She applies for a senior designer position at a major advertising firm. The firm, a “covered entity” under the ADA, reviews her portfolio and interview performance, finding her highly qualified. However, during the final stages, the hiring manager expresses concern about Sarah’s wheelchair, noting that the design studio has narrow aisles and the restroom on their floor isn’t wheelchair accessible.
If the firm were to deny Sarah the job specifically because of these accessibility issues, without exploring solutions, it would likely violate 42 U.S.C. § 12112. The statute mandates “reasonable accommodations” unless they impose an “undue hardship.” A reasonable accommodation in this scenario might include reconfiguring some studio furniture to widen aisles, providing a reasonable ramp if there’s a small step, or allowing Sarah to use an accessible restroom on another floor. If these modifications are not excessively costly or disruptive to the business, the firm must provide them. If the firm refuses to make such accommodations and denies her employment solely due to her disability, Sarah would have grounds for a discrimination claim under this law.
Related Statutes
- 42 U.S.C. § 12101 – Findings and Purpose: This introductory section of the ADA outlines Congress’s findings regarding the prevalence of disability discrimination and the broad purpose of the Act, which is to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities. It sets the stage for the specific prohibitions found in § 12112.
- 42 U.S.C. § 12102 – Definitions: This section is crucial for interpreting § 12112 as it defines key terms like “disability,” “qualified individual with a disability,” and “reasonable accommodation.” Understanding these definitions is essential for applying the anti-discrimination provisions correctly.
- 42 U.S.C. § 12111 – Definitions (Employment): Specifically for Subchapter I (Employment), this section further defines terms like “covered entity,” “employer,” “employee,” and “undue hardship,” which are directly referenced and vital for understanding the scope of § 12112.
- Texas Labor Code Chapter 21 (Texas Commission on Human Rights Act): While 42 U.S.C. § 12112 is a federal statute, many states, including Texas, have their own laws prohibiting disability discrimination in employment that often mirror or provide additional protections beyond the ADA. Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code, for example, prohibits discrimination based on disability and allows for parallel or additional claims under state law.
Case Law Interpreting 42 U.S.C. § 12112
Several landmark cases have interpreted the provisions of this specific statute, shaping its application in employment discrimination claims.
- In Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court addressed how “disability” should be interpreted under the ADA. The Court ruled that mitigating measures (like eyeglasses for severely myopic individuals) must be considered when determining if a person has a disability that substantially limits a major life activity. This case significantly impacted who qualified for ADA protection before a later amendment clarified the definition of disability.
* Find search results for Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc.
- Toyota Motor Mfg., Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams further clarified the “substantially limits a major life activity” requirement, particularly regarding the ability to perform manual tasks. The Court emphasized that an impairment must be severe to substantially limit a major life activity, looking at the person’s ability to perform a variety of tasks central to daily life, not just those related to work.
* Find search results for Toyota Motor Mfg., Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams
- The Supreme Court’s decision in PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin involved the reasonable accommodation aspect, specifically whether modifying the PGA Tour’s walking rule for a professional golfer with a disability was a reasonable accommodation. The Court found that it was, as it did not fundamentally alter the nature of the game. While not an employment case, it reinforced the broad scope of reasonable accommodation.
* Find search results for PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin
These cases, among others, have provided critical guidance on definitions, the scope of protection, and the employer’s obligations under 42 U.S.C. § 12112.
Why 42 U.S.C. § 12112 Matters in Personal Injury Litigation
Although 42 U.S.C. § 12112 primarily governs employment law, its principles can indirectly yet significantly impact personal injury litigation, particularly when a plaintiff sustains an injury that results in a permanent or long-term disability.
For plaintiffs, understanding this employment discrimination prohibition is crucial for accurately assessing damages related to lost earning capacity. If a severe personal injury causes a disability that hinders a plaintiff’s ability to secure or retain employment, the ADA can factor into the calculation of economic losses. For instance, if an injured party, now disabled, faces employment discrimination in their job search or is forced into a lower-paying role due to an employer’s failure to provide reasonable accommodation, this statute can inform the extent of their future wage loss or loss of earning potential. Expert vocational economists working with personal injury attorneys may consider the impact of potential ADA violations when projecting a plaintiff’s diminished future income.
For defendants, the ADA can sometimes present an argument regarding a plaintiff’s duty to mitigate damages. If a plaintiff claims substantial lost wages due to their disability after an injury, a defendant might argue that the plaintiff failed to utilize their rights under the ADA to seek reasonable accommodations or pursue available employment options. However, such arguments are often complex and depend on the specifics of the disability and the job market.
Moreover, if a personal injury occurs at a workplace, the employer’s compliance with ADA standards regarding facility accessibility or employee accommodation may become relevant to establishing the employer’s overall duty of care or a potential premises liability claim, especially if the injury exacerbates a pre-existing condition or leads to a new disability. While direct ADA claims are handled by employment lawyers, personal injury litigators need to be aware of this statute’s implications for their clients’ post-injury employment prospects and the full scope of their damages.