Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Toyota Motor Mfg. v. Williams
534 U.S. 184 (2002) ; Clearinghouse Number: 54341
Description
Employee Who Cannot Perform Manual Tasks Necessary to Her Job But Can Perform Manual Tasks of Daily Living Is Not Disabled
Abstract
The Supreme Court held that, to be substantially limited in the
specific major life activity of performing manual tasks, an
individual must have an impairment that prevents or severely
restricts the individual from doing activities that are of central
importance to most people’s daily lives. Respondent employee
is disabled from performing her automobile assembly job by carpal
tunnel syndrome and related impairments. She claimed that
petitioner, her former employer, failed to provide her with a
reasonable accommodation as the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A), required. The district
court, holding that employee’s impairment did not qualify as
a “disability” under the ADA because it did not
substantially limit any major life activity, granted
employer’s motion for summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit,
reversing the district court, found that employee’s
impairments substantially limited her in the major life activity of
performing manual tasks. Reversing the Sixth Circuit, the Supreme
Court held that the Sixth Circuit applied an improper standard in
determining that employee was disabled because it analyzed only a
limited class of manual tasks and failed to ask whether
employee’s impairments prevented or restricted her from
performing tasks that were of central importance to most
people’s daily lives. The Court found that nothing in the
ADA’s text, Supreme Court precedent, or regulations suggests
that a class-based framework should apply outside the context of
the major life activity of working. Moreover, the Court found that
the definition of “disability” was intended to cover
individuals with disabling impairments whether or not they had any
connection to a workplace. The Court held that, because the manual
tasks unique to any particular job were not necessarily important
parts of most people’s lives, occupation-specific tasks might
have only limited relevance to the manual task inquiry.
