McKay v. Toyota Motor Manufacturing, U.S.A., Inc.
878 F. Supp. 1012, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3046, 4 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 144 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), an individual is not substantially limited in the major life activity of working unless they are significantly restricted in their ability to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes, rather than merely being unable to perform a single, particular job.
Facts:
- Pamela McKay began working for Toyota Motor Manufacturing, U.S.A., Inc. (TMM) on March 9, 1992, in the body weld division of its Georgetown, Kentucky plant.
- Within a few weeks, McKay began experiencing pain, numbness, and tingling in both of her hands, forearms, and wrists.
- Dr. Tsu-Min Tsai, an orthopedic surgeon, diagnosed McKay with carpal tunnel syndrome caused by her work, determining she had a 10% disability in her right arm and a 6% permanent impairment to her body as a whole.
- Dr. Tsai and other medical professionals restricted McKay from performing work using vibratory tools and limited the amount of weight she could lift.
- McKay alleged that TMM continually refused her requests for employment in several vacant light or medium duty positions and failed to provide work conforming to her restrictions.
- TMM asserted it engaged in various efforts to assist McKay, including granting medical leave, placing her in modified jobs and rehabilitation programs, and approving a job transfer.
- McKay's employment with TMM was terminated on June 7, 1993, due to allegedly excessive absences from work.
- At the time of her termination, McKay was a 24-year-old college graduate working on earning her teaching certificate.
Procedural Posture:
- Pamela McKay filed an action in U.S. District Court on December 14, 1993, alleging termination of employment in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Kentucky Equal Opportunities Act, and Kentucky Civil Rights Act, along with state law claims for wrongful discharge and breach of an alleged employment contract.
- The defendant, Toyota Motor Manufacturing, U.S.A., Inc. (TMM), filed a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employee diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome, whose work restrictions prevent her from performing repetitive factory work and who can perform most household functions except mopping, qualify as a 'qualified individual with a disability' under the Americans with Disabilities Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Forester, District Judge
No, Pamela McKay is not a 'qualified individual with a disability' under the ADA because her impairment does not substantially limit one or more of her major life activities. The court determined that McKay's carpal tunnel syndrome, despite causing a diagnosed impairment and work restrictions, did not significantly restrict her ability to perform a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes, especially considering her age and college education for numerous non-factory positions. The court emphasized that the inability to perform a single, particular job is insufficient to constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working, citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(3)(i). Furthermore, McKay was not substantially limited in the major life activity of 'caring for oneself,' as her claim of being limited only in mopping was deemed not a substantial limitation. The court also found no evidence that McKay had a record of an impairment or was 'regarded as' having such an impairment, rejecting a vocational expert's conclusory testimony. A mere diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome, without evidence of substantial limitation in a major life activity, is not sufficient to establish a disability under the ADA.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the high threshold for proving 'disability' under the ADA, particularly concerning the 'substantially limits the major life activity of working' prong. It underscores that an individual must be restricted from performing a broad range or class of jobs, not just a single specific job, and that transferable skills and educational background are relevant to this determination. The ruling establishes that minor limitations in daily life activities or a mere medical diagnosis are generally insufficient without robust evidence of broad functional impairment, thereby narrowing the scope of ADA protection for individuals with conditions like carpal tunnel syndrome who possess other employment opportunities.
