Effective January 1, 2009, the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") has been amended so as to make it easier to prove "regarded as" claims and to make it easier to prove that someone is substantally limited. To read the new regulation, click here.  Cases decided under the "old law" may no longer be correct.

In Burks v. Wisconsin Dept. of Transp., 464 F.3d 744, 757 (7th Cir. 2006), the court explained:

Ms. Burks has not demonstrated that she is substantially limited in the major life activity of sleeping. She stated that she has difficulty sleeping for more than three hours at a time, but provided no medical records or other evidence to demonstrate the effect of this situation on her ability to function in daily life. We have held that only "prolonged, severe and long-term sleep difficulties [] can amount to a substantial limitation in the major life activity of sleeping." Scheerer, 443 F.3d at 920 (holding that "intermittent disrupted sleep" is not a substantial limitation); see also Rossbach, 371 F.3d at 1359 (holding that plaintiffs who claimed they could not sleep normally and could not get "a solid night's sleep" were not substantially limited from sleeping); Colwell, 158 F.3d at 644 (holding that a plaintiff, who stated that he "usually get[s] a tough night's sleep," was not substantially limited in the activity of sleeping, because "[d]ifficulty sleeping is extremely widespread" and because the plaintiff had made no showing that his difficulties were any worse than difficulties suffered by a large number of adults).

In Nuzum v. Ozark Automotive Distributors, Inc., 432 F.3d 839 (8th Cir. 2005), the court held that the inability to sleep more than four to five hours per night is not substantially limiting because the plaintiff failed to "show that his sleeping patterns are significantly different from the rest of the population's." Nuzum, 432 F.3d at 848. In this case, the court assumed without deciding that sleeping is a major life activity.

In Head v. Glacier Northwest, Inc., 413 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2005), the court held that Head's declaration alleging great difficulty sleeping at night, with some improvement when using sleep medication, suffices to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether she was substantially limited with respect to the major life activity of sleeping.