Client Bulletin No. 334 January 9, 2002 SUPREME COURT CONTINUES TO NARROW SCOPE OF ADA In a decision issued January 8, 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court continued its trend toward narrowing the scope of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), this time in a case involving a plaintiff with carpal tunnel syndrome. In Toyota Motor Mfg., Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, the plaintiff contended that she was substantially limited in the major life activity of performing manual tasks, among others. Her limitations consisted of inability to perform one or two components of a four-part rotation job on the Toyota assembly line and moderate limitations on her ability to garden, do housework, and groom herself. The Supreme Court found that these restrictions were not "substantially limiting" enough to amount to an ADA disability. A "disability" within the meaning of the ADA requires (1) an impairment (2) that "substantially limits" (3) a "major life activity." Some examples of "major life activities" are seeing, hearing, walking, working, and performing manual tasks. In the Toyota case, the Court defined what a plaintiff must prove to show that she is substantially limited in performing manual tasks. According to the Court, the 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. The impairment must also be permanent or long-term." It is not enough for her to show that she is unable to perform various manual tasks of a specific job, the Court said. Instead, an employee must be unable to perform a wide range of tasks -- both at work and outside of work -- to meet the definition of "disability." It is important to note that the Court did not say that carpal tunnel can never be an ADA disability. If the carpal tunnel results in a long-term impairment that severely restricts the individual’s ability to perform these "centrally important" "daily life activities," then presumably the individual would be "disabled" within the meaning of the ADA. Accordingly, employers must still evaluate each employee’s condition and restrictions on a case-by-case basis to determine whether an employee is entitled to a reasonable accommodation under the ADA. The Toyota decision continues the Court’s trend toward requiring that individuals be markedly more limited than the general population to be entitled to ADA protection and its reluctance to declare that certain medical conditions, per se, are ADA disabilities. In 1999, the Court began curtailing the coverage of the ADA in Sutton v. United Air Lines (nearsightedness that was correctable is not an ADA disability), and Albertson’s, Inc. v. Kirkingburg (monocular vision is not necessarily an ADA disability; particularized analysis of the limitations it imposes on the individual must be assessed). See also Bragdon v. Abbott (HIV infection found to be a disability in individual case, but Court declined to consider whether HIV infection was an ADA disability in every case). There has been a decline in ADA litigation since the Court’s 1999 decisions, and Constangy expects the Toyota decision to continue that trend as fewer individuals can claim the ADA’s protections. That said, Constangy continues to recommend that employers accommodate their employees’ medical conditions to the extent possible and practical, as a matter of good Human Resources practice. But it’s good news for employers that mistakes or business concerns that result in "no accommodation" decisions are less likely to be subject to legal challenge. (The Toyota decision is the first of 12 disability discrimination cases being decided this year by the Supreme Court. Constangy’s web site (www.constangy.com) will post updates on the decisions and their practical significance as they are issued.)