Karen Shields worked as an HR Generalist for Credit One Bank before her position was eliminated, which occurred after she took a medical leave of absence as an accommodation under the ADA. The district court granted the Bank’s motion to dismiss on the ground that Shields had failed to plead facts sufficient to establish she had an “impairment” or any “permanent or long-term effects for her impairment.” The Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal, noting that that both the ADA and the applicable EEOC regulations had been updated and broadened to encompass protection for the “effects of an impairment lasting or expected to last fewer than six months.” 29 CFR § 1630.2(j)(1)(ix). The Court further held that Shields had adequately alleged a disability under the ADA. See also Buchanan v. Watkins & Letofsky, LLP, 30 F.4th 874 (9th Cir. 2022) (plaintiff established genuine issue of material fact whether employer’s two offices were an integrated enterprise and, thus, together have at least 15 employees such that the employer is covered by the ADA).