Receipts.law

29 C.F.R. § 825.123Unable to perform the functions of the position

What this section is. § 825.123 is part of the Family and Medical Leave Act regulations (29 C.F.R. Part 825) and governs Unable to perform the functions of the position. 4 court opinions applying it are listed below, each verified against the opinion's own text and linked to the full decision.
The rule begins: “(a) Definition.”

The regulation, in full

(a) Definition. An employee is unable to perform the functions of the position where the health care provider finds that the employee is unable to work at all or is unable to perform any one of the essential functions of the employee's position within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), as amended, 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq., and the regulations at 29 CFR 1630.2(n). An employee who must be absent from work to receive medical treatment for a serious health condition is considered to be unable to perform the essential functions of the position during the absence for treatment.

(b) Statement of functions. An employer has the option, in requiring certification from a health care provider, to provide a statement of the essential functions of the employee's position for the health care provider to review. A sufficient medical certification must specify what functions of the employee's position the employee is unable to perform so that the employer can then determine whether the employee is unable to perform one or more essential functions of the employee's position. For purposes of FMLA, the essential functions of the employee's position are to be determined with reference to the position the employee held at the time notice is given or leave commenced, whichever is earlier. See ยง 825.306.

Verbatim from the eCFR, title 29, section 825.123, current as of 2026-07-29. Read it at the official source: ecfr.gov →

Court opinions applying § 825.123

Each opinion below was checked against its own text: the citation appears in a C.F.R. context and the opinion discusses the FMLA. Cases that merely contained the number were dropped.

CaseCourtDecided
Robert Jones v. C & D TechnologiesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit2012-06-28
Attakora v. District of ColumbiaDistrict Court, District of Columbia2013-05-08
Stewart v. WhiteDistrict Court, District of Columbia2014-07-31
Andrea Tumbleson v. Lakota Local Sch. Dist.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit2026-05-13

Opinions hosted by CourtListener, a free public service of the non-profit Free Law Project. Court opinions are public-domain works of the United States.

General legal information, not legal advice. This page reproduces a federal regulation and lists decisions that cite it. It does not tell you how any rule applies to your situation, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Regulations change and courts read them differently across circuits — confirm the current text at ecfr.gov and talk to a licensed attorney in your state.