Proving a disability in court isn’t that hard. (Even judges mistake how easy it is.)

A man walks into a job interview.

Years earlier, he sustained an injury that caused him to walk with a limp and requires him to extend his leg when seated. He had applied for one of the company’s open positions. And since he satisfied the minimum experiential and educational requirements, the company invited him to interview. Throughout the interview, the man notices that the interviewers appeared bothered by his outstretched leg.

The man doesn’t get the job. Instead, the company hired two younger candidates who, unlike the man, had not met the position’s minimum education and experience requirements. So, the man complains about it to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). When asked for its position, the company responds to the EEOC, “No one was hired for that position, and it was closed out.” Meanwhile, the company’s email to the man rejecting him mentioned, “[the] position has been filled.”

Eventually, this dispute ended up in court, with the man claiming disability and age discrimination.

The court entered summary judgment for the defendant, finding that the plaintiff had “not established that he suffers an impairment that substantially limits a major life activity—walking and/or standing” because of the absence of medical records supporting his disability status. However, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed.

Even though it didn’t have to, the appellate court turned to the Americans with Disabilities Act’s regulations, which provide “The comparison of an individual’s performance of a major life activity to the performance of the same major life activity by most people in the general population usually will not require scientific, medical, or statistical analysis.” In plain English, a plaintiff doesn’t need to bring a doctor to court to show they are disabled under the ADA.

Additionally, the court overlooked that a temporary disability may still qualify as a disability under the statute. The ADA regulations state, “The effects of an impairment lasting or expected to last fewer than six months can be substantially limiting within the meaning of [disability].

Further, the lower court gave short shrift to the plaintiff’s claim that the defendant regarded him as disabled. Perhaps the plaintiff didn’t actually have a disability, but the defendant perceived one anyway. Indeed, the plaintiff alleged that one of the interviewers constantly “looked at his leg” with “his mouth wide open as he watched” the plaintiff walk into the interview. On that evidence, a reasonable jury could conclude that the defendant regarded the plaintiff as disabled.

Finally, there are the shifting reasons for not giving the plaintiff the job. Did the defendant hire someone else to fill it or not? A jury should have decided whether this inconsistency was a pretext for discrimination.