concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Because I believe that there is an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff is substantially limited in work even with his medication, I concur that the case should be remanded for further proceedings. I agree with Judge Guy that the record presents an issue of fact as to whether plaintiff is substantially limited. However, because I believe the Court’s interpretation of disability conflicts with the statutory requirement under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) that a disability “substantially limit” one or more of an individual’s major life activities, I dissent.
The term “disability” is defined under the ADA to mean “with respect to an individual — (A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of [such] individual.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(A). Under the Court’s interpretation of “disability,” adopted from the EEOC’s interpretive guidelines, “[t]he determination of whether an individual is substantially limited in a major life activity must be made ... without regard to mitigating measures such as medicines, or assistive or prosthetic devices.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630 App. 1630.2(j).
The EEOC’s position on mitigating measures appears not in the regulations themselves, but in an appendix to the regulations labeled “Interpretive Guidance on Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act.” 29 C.F.R. § 1630 App., Introduction. The appendix constitutes a set of interpretative, rather than legislative, rules and is, therefore, not binding law. See Coghlan v. H.J. Heinz Co., 851 F.Supp. 808, 811-12 (N.D.Tex.1994). Nevertheless, “[s]uch administrative interpretations of the [ADA] by the enforcing agency, ‘while not controlling upon the courts by reason of their authority, do constitute a body of experience and informed judgment to which courts and litigants may properly resort for guidance.’” Grenier v. Cyanamid Plastics, Inc., 70 F.3d 667, 672 (1st Cir.1995) (quoting Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, 65, 106 S.Ct. 2399, 2404, 91 L.Ed.2d 49 (1986)). An interpretative rule is still entitled to “some deference” where the rule is a “permissible construction of the statute.” Reno v. Koray, 515 U.S. 50, 61, 115 S.Ct. 2021, 2027, 132 L.Ed.2d 46 (1995).
In my opinion, the EEOC’s rule on mitigating circumstances conflicts with the text of the ADA and is, therefore, not a “permissible construction of the statute.” Id. To be “disabled” under 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(A), an individual must prove (1) *767that he has an impairment, and (2) that this impairment substantially limits a major life activity. The EEOC’s rule is at odds with this second requirement. Under the EEOC’s Interpretive Guidance, an individual is considered disabled even if, with the benefit of medication, the individual is not, in fact, substantially limited in any major life activity. The EEOC’s rule, in effect, eliminates the statutory requirement that an impairment “substantially limit[ ]” a major life activity in order to constitute a disability. As a result, I believe that the ADA’s definition of disability “cannot bear the interpretation adopted by” the EEOC in 29 C.F.R. § 1630 App. 1630.2(j), Sullivan v. Everhart, 494 U.S. 83, 92, 110 S.Ct. 960, 966, 108 L.Ed.2d 72 (1990), and, therefore, that this Court should not give effect to the EEOC’s interpretive rule. See Public Employees Retirement Sys. v. Betts, 492 U.S. 158, 171, 109 S.Ct. 2854, 2863, 106 L.Ed.2d 134 (1989) (“[Ojf course, no deference is due to agency interpretations at odds with the plain language of the statute itself.”).
I recognize that portions of the ADA’s vast legislative history lend some support to the EEOC’s position. Where the statutory text is unambiguous, however, as I believe it is here, that ends the matter. “[W]e do not resort to legislative history to cloud a statutory text that is clear.” Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135, 147-48, 114 S.Ct. 655, 662, 126 L.Ed.2d 615 (1994). This is a ease where “[i]t is unnecessary to consult the legislative history ... because the statute’s terms are unmistakable.” Bower v. Federal Express Corp., 96 F.3d 200, 210 (6th Cir. 1996).
The interpretive rule would also appear to be in conflict with the EEOC regulations concerning “disability.” There, it states:
The term substantially limits means:
(i) Unable to perform a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform; or
(ii) - Significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under which an individual can perform a particular major life activity as compared to the condition, manner, or duration under which the average person in the general population can perform that same major life activity.
29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(l).
Under the interpretive rule, we do not make an individualized comparison to the average person in the general population but, rather, we consider how a hypothetical person who did not take medication would compare. The EEOC’s interpretive rule creates substantial limitations when no substantial limitation exists. Whether a plaintiff is disabled is an individualized inquiry which depends upon the particular circumstances at issue. See, e.g., Webb v. Garelick Mfg. Co., 94 F.3d 484, 487 (8th Cir.1996); Jasany v. United States Postal Serv., 755 F.2d 1244, 1249 (6th Cir.1985). The inability to perform a particular job or the job of one’s choice is not a disability. See, e.g., McKay v. Toyota Motor Mfg., U.S.A., Inc., 110 F.3d 369, 371 (6th Cir.1997); Gupton v. Commonwealth of Va., 14 F.3d 203, 205 (4th Cir.1994); Heilweil v. Mount Sinai Hosp., 32 F.3d 718, 723-24 (2d Cir.1994); Byrne v. Bd. of Educ., School of West Allis-West Milwaukee, 979 F.2d 560, 565 (7th Cir.1992); Maulding v. Sullivan, 961 F.2d 694, 698 (8th Cir.1992).
The EEOC is creating a different standard for persons who take medication for their condition. This conflicts with the plain reading of the statute. The ADA does not provide protection for anyone with any degree of physical or mental impairment: It provides protection only for those whose impairments substantially limit their lives. I do not believe that Congress intended the ADA to protect as “disabled” all individuals whose life activities would hypothetically be substantially limited were they to stop taking medication. Of course, it may well be in some instances that the controlling medication (or other mitigating measure) will itself impose a substantial limitation on an individual’s major life activities. In such cases, the individual will be “disabled” under the ADA. But where an impairment is fully controlled by mitigating measures and such measures do not themselves substantially limit an individual’s major life activities, I believe the ADA provides no protection.
Plaintiff testified that his blood sugar becomes elevated when he has to deal with *768stress and that it may take two to three days to bring it back under control. Stress is so common in the workplace that a condition which makes one unable to deal with stress may well substantially limit one in the major life activity of working. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(l) provides:
(3) With respect to the major life activity of working—
(i) The term substantially limits means significantly restricted in the ability to perform either, a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities.
Plaintiffs response to stress would restrict his ability to perform a wide range of jobs. Accordingly, I, too, would reverse the grant of summary judgment and remand for further proceedings.