Lexplug logoLexplug

Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams

United States Supreme Court
534 U.S. 184 (2002)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), to be substantially limited in the major life activity of performing manual tasks, an individual's impairment must prevent or severely restrict them from performing activities of central importance to most people's daily lives, not merely tasks associated with a specific job.


Facts:

  • Ella Williams began working at a Toyota automobile manufacturing plant in 1990, where she worked on an assembly line using pneumatic tools.
  • Her use of the tools caused pain, leading to a diagnosis of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and tendinitis.
  • A physician placed Williams on permanent work restrictions, precluding her from lifting heavy objects, engaging in constant repetitive motions with her wrists or elbows, or using vibratory or pneumatic tools.
  • Toyota assigned Williams to a Quality Control Inspection Operations (QCIO) team, where she performed two tasks—visually inspecting cars and wiping them down—which she was capable of doing.
  • In 1996, Toyota required all QCIO employees to rotate through an additional task, 'shell body audit,' which required Williams to hold her hands and arms at shoulder height for several hours at a time.
  • Performing this new task caused Williams to develop further impairments, including myotendinitis and thoracic outlet compression, causing pain in her neck and shoulders.
  • Williams requested an accommodation to only perform her original two QCIO jobs, which she claimed she could still do without difficulty.
  • After being denied the accommodation, Williams was eventually terminated by Toyota, citing her poor attendance record.

Procedural Posture:

  • Ella Williams filed suit against Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, alleging violations of the ADA.
  • The District Court granted summary judgment to Toyota, finding that Williams's impairments did not substantially limit any major life activity and she was therefore not disabled under the ADA.
  • Williams (appellant) appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
  • The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decision, holding that Williams's inability to perform a 'class' of manual jobs associated with manufacturing established that she was substantially limited in the major life activity of performing manual tasks.
  • The Court of Appeals granted partial summary judgment to Williams on the issue of her disability status.
  • Toyota (petitioner) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.

Locked

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's inability to perform manual tasks associated with her specific assembly line job, while still being able to perform personal hygiene and household chores, constitute a "substantial limitation" in the major life activity of "performing manual tasks" under the Americans with Disabilities Act?


Opinions:

Majority - Justice O’Connor

No. To be substantially limited in the major life activity of performing manual tasks, an individual must have an impairment that prevents or severely restricts them from doing activities that are of central importance to most people's daily lives. The Sixth Circuit erred by focusing its analysis on Williams's inability to perform manual tasks specific to her assembly line job. The ADA requires a demanding, individualized assessment of how an impairment affects tasks central to daily life for most people, such as personal care and household chores. Because the definition of 'disability' applies to all titles of the ADA, not just employment, the analysis cannot be limited to the workplace context. As Williams could still perform tasks like bathing, brushing her teeth, and carrying out household chores, her impairments did not rise to the level of a substantial limitation in the major life activity of performing manual tasks as a matter of law.



Analysis:

This decision significantly narrowed the interpretation of 'disability' under the ADA by establishing a high threshold for what constitutes a substantial limitation in performing manual tasks. It shifted the legal inquiry away from an individual's inability to perform job-specific tasks and toward their ability to perform basic, everyday activities central to life outside of work. This 'central importance to most people's daily lives' standard makes it more difficult for plaintiffs with impairments like carpal tunnel syndrome or other repetitive stress injuries to qualify for ADA protection unless their condition is profoundly restrictive across a broad spectrum of personal activities.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams (2002)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"