Whether the Third Circuit erred in holding that the 'substantial limitation' standard requires disregarding evidence of real-world academic and standardized testing performance, and giving greater weight to a claimant's evaluator than to the opinions of independent medical professionals

QUESTION PRESENTED Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), a “disability” is “a physical or mental impairment,” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(A), that “substantially limits the ability of an individual to perform a major life activity as compared to most people in the general population,” 28 C.F.R. § 36.105(d)(1)(v). This case applies that standard in the context of requests for accommodations on high-stakes standardized tests. The Third Circuit held that Jessica Ramsay—who, among other academic accomplishments, achieved a top-3% score on the reading-intensive ACT college-admission test, outscoring over a million other college-bound examinees—has a reading disability entitling her to significant extra testing time on a medical licensing exam, based on a diagnosis from a private evaluator who advertises his specialty as securing extra time on standardized tests. The question presented is whether the Third Circuit erred in holding—in conflict with decisions by eight other circuits and contrary to this Court’s precedent—that the “substantial limitation” standard requires (1) disregarding evidence of real-world academic and standardized testing performance, and (2) giving greater weight to a claimant’s evaluator than to the opinions of independent medical professionals whose expertise is not contested, but who did not personally evaluate the examinee.