In the case Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams, the Supreme Court decided that in order to qualify as a “disability” under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a person’s physical impairment must significantly limit their ability to do important daily tasks that most people do. This means that only a limited number of employees are protected by the ADA. The plaintiff worked at Toyota’s manufacturing plant inspecting painted cars. After being asked to do a new job that caused her pain, she asked Toyota to let her go back to her old jobs. Toyota said no, and she sued them for not accommodating her disability. The court said she was disabled because her injuries made it hard for her to do certain work tasks, even though she could still do personal chores. The court ruled in her favor. The Supreme Court decided to figure out the rule for determining if someone is disabled under the ADA. They said that an impairment has to make it really hard for someone to do important tasks in their everyday life in order for them to be considered disabled. Just having a medical diagnosis isn’t enough to prove disability – the person also has to show how the impairment affects their daily life. They also said that each case has to be looked at individually, and you can’t just say that anyone with a certain impairment is automatically disabled. After explaining the rule, they said that the Sixth Circuit’s decision didn’t follow the rule, so they reversed the decision. In this case, the court made a mistake in deciding if the plaintiff was disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). They used the wrong standard and only looked at the plaintiff’s ability to do her job, instead of considering all the tasks people need to do in their daily lives. The Supreme Court said this was wrong and sent the case back to the lower court to decide again using the correct standard. The Toyota Motor case builds on the Sutton case by saying that you’re not considered disabled under the ADA just because you can’t do one specific job. You have to show that your impairment limits you from doing a whole range of jobs, or that it severely restricts you from doing activities that are important for most people. This means that fewer people will be able to claim protection under the ADA, and there will be more scrutiny in each case to see if the person really qualifies as disabled. The Toyota case clarified the standard for being considered “disabled” under the ADA, requiring a case-by-case analysis of an individual’s limitations both at work and in their personal life. This means that people will need to provide more detailed information about how their impairment affects their daily activities. This individualized approach will prevent courts from ruling out certain conditions as disabilities. Since the decision, many cases have used this approach to determine that the plaintiff was not disabled under the ADA. For example, a court found that a reporter’s inability to continuously type or write was not a substantial limitation on manual tasks. In some recent court cases, the courts have made it harder for people to claim they are disabled under the ADA. For example, in one case, a corrections officer with back injuries wasn’t considered disabled because it only affected his job performance, not his ability to do other things. In another case, an employee with heart problems couldn’t prove that he couldn’t do a wide range of jobs or everyday activities. These cases show that courts are being stricter about who can claim to be disabled under the ADA, and it’s expected that this trend will continue. Only those who can meet a higher standard will be able to win their cases.
Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/those-tasks-arent-importantthe-supreme-court-limits-application-of-the-ada/
Leave a Reply