Unanimous
Vote Is Big Victory For Employers
Supreme Court Defines
‘Disabled’ Under ADA
by Steven John Fellman
NATO Washington Counsel
In a major decision
reported Jan. 8, a unanimous Supreme Court reversed a court of appeals
holding that a Toyota automobile assembly worker with carpal tunnel
syndrome and related impairments was a disabled person as that term
is defined under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA).
This is a big victory for employers, including cinema owners.
The employee was employed on the engine fabrication assembly line
of the Toyota plant in Georgetown, Ky. Her duties included working
with pneumatic tools. She reported that use of these tools caused
pain in her hands, wrists, and arms. She sought treatment in Toyota’s
in-house medical service where she was diagnosed with bilateral
carpal tunnel syndrome and bilateral tendonitis. After consulting
with a personal physician, she was told that she should not be given
work assignments where she had to lift more than 20 pounds or she
was frequently required to lift or carry objects weighing up to
10 pounds. She was also told that she shouldn’t engage in repetitive
constant flexion or extension of her wrists or elbows or perform
overhead work or use vibratory or pneumatic tools.
Toyota made various accommodations for the employee and eventually
she was placed on a team of quality control inspection operations
(QCIO). This job modification involved four tasks. Two of the tasks
she could perform without any problem. Eventually, she was requested
to perform the remaining two of the four tasks. These two tasks
involved applying highlight oil to the hood, fender, doors, rear
quarter panel and trunk of passing cars and then inspecting the
surface of the cars for flaws. Wiping the cars with oil required
the employee to hold her hands and arms up around shoulder height
for several hours at a time. After she was assigned this task, she
began to experience pain in her neck and shoulders. She again visited
Toyota’s in-house medical service and she was diagnosed with
an inflammation of the muscles and tendons around both of her shoulder
blades. She had certain nerve compressions and thoracic outward
compression which caused pain in the nerves that led to the upper
extremities. Due to her medical condition, she was unable to work
on a regular basis.
Eventually the employee received a letter from Toyota terminating
her employment and citing her poor attendance record. The employee
filed suit against Toyota claiming that she was disabled under the
provisions of the ADA and that Toyota had not taken adequate steps
to accommodate her disability.
At trial, the U.S. District Court held that the employee had in
fact suffered a physical impairment but that the impairment did
not qualify as a “disability” under the ADA because her
disability had not “substantially limited” any of her
major life activities. Although the District Court agreed that performing
manual tasks such as lifting and working are major life activities,
it found that the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that
the employee had been substantially limited in lifting or working.
The district court said that the employees’ claim that she
was substantially limited in performing manual tasks was “irretrievably
contradicted by [her] continual insistence that she could perform
the tasks in the assembly [paint] and paint [second] inspection
without difficulty.” The District Court concluded that the
employee was not a “qualified individual with a disability”
as defined in the ADA and thus was not entitled to relief.
The Court of Appeals found that the employee’s ailments prevented
her from doing the tasks associated with certain types of manual
assembly line jobs that required the gripping of tools and repetitive
work with hands or arms extended at or above shoulder levels for
extended periods of time. The Court of Appeals decided that since
the employee was substantially limited in performing manual tasks,
the employee was entitled to partial summary judgment on the issue
of whether she was disabled under the act. Toyota appealed the case
to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court reversed the Court of
Appeals.
The Supreme Court found that merely having an impairment does not
make a person disabled for purposes of the ADA. The court held that
an employee has to show that the impairment limits a major life
activity. Further, the limitation on the major life activity must
be “substantial.” The Supreme Court opinion focused on
the meaning of the word “substantial.” The Court said
that a plaintiff in an ADA case alleging employment discrimination
must demonstrate that the disability in question is more than an
impairment that interferes in only a minor way with the performance
of manual tasks. The Court decided that in order to be substantially
limited in performing manual tasks, an individual must have an impairment
that prevents or severely restricts the individual from performing
activities that are of central importance to most people’s
daily lives. Such an impairment must be permanent or long-term.
These types of impairments must be assessed on an individual basis,
as symptoms will vary from person to person. As an example, the
court noted that carpal tunnel syndrome could have severe effects
for some people and relatively minor effects for others. The Supreme
Court ruled that the Court of Appeals made a mistake in focusing
on the employee’s inability to perform manual tasks associated
only with her job. The central inquiry must be whether the employee
is unable to perform a variety of tasks central to most people’s
daily lives, not whether the employee is unable to perform the tasks
associated with a specific job.
In its analysis, the Supreme Court stated that manual tasks unique
to any particular job are not necessarily important parts of most
people’s lives. As a result, occupation-specific tasks may
have only limited relevance to the manual tasks inquiry. In its
ruling, the Supreme Court directed that inquiries regarding ADA
definition of disability must go beyond job related activity. Courts
need to consider manual tasks of central importance in people’s
daily lives in order to assess whether a person is substantially
limited in performing manual tasks.
As an example, assume that a theatre concession worker suffers a
disability that resulted in him being unable to operate the popcorn
machine. If the concession worker could perform all the other functions
of the job and could perform all other activities of daily living,
under the Supreme Court decision in the Toyota case, the concession
worker would not qualify as a disabled person under the ADA.
Theatre owners faced with employee claims of disability under the
ADA should carefully review the nature of the claim and make an
assessment of whether the individual can in fact perform various
types of life activities. If in fact the individual can perform
most of life’s activities, the decision in the Toyota case
would suggest that the individual does not qualify for relief under
the ADA. 
