forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Fed. R. Civ, P.
56(e). A “genuine issue” in the context of a motion for summary judgment is not
simply a “metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co.,
Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986). Rather, a genuine issue of
material fact exists when "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a
verdict for the nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 US, 242, 248
(1986); Insolia v. Philip Morris, Inc., 216 F.3d 596, 599 (7th Cir. 2000). The court
must consider the record as a whole in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party
and draw all reasonable inferences that favor the nonmoving party. Anderson, 477
US. at 255; Bay v. Cassens Transport Co., 212 F.3d 969, 972 (7th Cir. 2000).
DISCUSSION

Holloway claims that Klein Tools terminated his employment because of his
alleged disability and that Klein Tools failed to accommodate his alleged disability in
violation ofthe ADA. 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. However, the scope of the ADA does
not encompass every physical and mental discomfort or ailment. See, e.g., Toyota
Motor Mfg., Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184, 184 (2002). The ADA only
protects individuals that have an impairment that falls within the meaning of the term
“disability” as it is defined in the ADA and interpreted by the courts. 42 U.S.C.

§§ 12112(a), 12102(2)(A); Toyota Motor Mfg., Kentucky, Inc., 534 U.S. at 184-185.

-4.



was not a disability under the ADA). Thus, although Holloway’s back is permanently
impaired to some degree, the impairment is not sufficiently severe in the eyes of
Congress and the judicial system to qualify as a disability and warrant protection under

the ADA.

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing analysis, we grant Klein Tools’ motion for summary

judgment. All other pending motions are thus rendered moot.

Ro Dra Floren

Charles P, Kocoras
Chief Judge
United States District Court

Dated: Me



disability and failed to provide him with reasonable accommodations in violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.
Subsequent to the filing of the motion for summary judgment Klein Tools provided
Holloway with appropriate written notice of the purpose of a summary judgment
motion and an explanation of the consequences of failing to respond to the motion. See
Local Rule 56.2; Timms v. Frank, 953 F.2d 281, 285 (7th Cir. 1992).
LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate when the record, viewed in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party, reveals that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(c). In seeking a grant of summary judgment the moving party must identify
“those portions of ‘the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any’ which it believes demonstrate
the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 US.
317, 323 (1986) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)), This initial burden may be satisfied
by presenting specific evidence on a particular issue or by pointing out “an absence of
evidence to support the non-moving party’s case.” Celotex, 477 U.S, at 325, Once the
movant has met this burden, the non-moving party cannot simply rest on the allegations

in the pleadings, but “by affidavits or as otherwise provided for in [Rule 56], must set

3.


The ADA defines a disability as “a physical or mental impairment that substantially
limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual.” 42 U.S.C.
§ 12102(2)(A). For an impairment to fall within the scope of the ADA definition of
a disability the impairment must be “permanent or long term” and 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.” Toyota Motor
Mfe., Kentucky, Inc., 534 U.S. at 185. Tn determining whether an impairment falls
within the ADA definition ofa disability the focus must remain on the issue of whether
the claimant is “unable to perform the variety of tasks central to most people’s daily
lives,” not whether the claimant is unable to perform the tasks required for the
claimant’s specific job. Jd. at 185-86; Mack v. Great Dane Trailers, 308 F.3d. 776, 780
(7th Cir, 2002). Although there is no exhaustive list of what tasks that are central to
most peoples daily lives, the courts have provided some examples. See Toyota Motor
Mfg., Kentucky, Inc., 534 U.S. at 185, 197 (listing as examples walking, seeing,
hearing, doing household chores, bathing, and brushing teeth); Mays v. Principi, 301
F.3d 866, 869 (7th Cir. 2002) (suggesting that walking, seeing, reproduction, and the
use of an arm would be tasks that are central to most people’s daily lives); Mack, 380

F.3d at 781 (listing as examples taking care of one’s self and lifting a pencil or

toothbrush).



‘Minute Order Form (06097)

py

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

lame of Assigned Judge (ing Judge if Other
N ni eget ate ane Charles P. Kocoras Sitting ee sudge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 3148 DATE 3/20/2003
CASE Andrew Holloway vs. Klein Tools, Inc.
TITLE

[in the following box (a) indicate the party (ling the motion, ¢.g,, plaintiff, defendant, 3td party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
of the motion being presented. }

MOTION:

DOCKET ENTRY:

q) o Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) o Brief in support of motion due

(3) QO Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer briefdue__

(4) ao Ruling/Hearingon set for al_

(5) D Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set forlon__sset fort

(6) a Pretrial conferencc[held/continued to] [set for/rc-set for]on___——sct for at.
(7) o Trial[sct for/re-set for]on at _

(8) 0 [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at

(9) a This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

OOFRCP4(m) OLocal Rule 41.1 CUFRCP41(a)(1) CO FRCP41(a)(2).

(10) MM [Otherdocketentry} Ruling held. ENTER MEMORANDUM OPINION: We grant Klein Tool’s
motion (Doc 25-1) for summary judgment. All other pending motions are thus rendered moot.

(dt) ff (Por further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court,

Ne notices required,
4 number of notices:

4.2003

Notices mailed by judge's stall. A ented

Notified counsel by telephone.

oe | Docketing to mail notices.
ov | Mail AO 450 form,

Copy theleermagisn judge,

courtroom
Sct deputy’
initials.

6i ei Nd G2 eH bu

date mile nutice

Obits fad

central Clerk's Offics mailing deputy initials



Holoway claims that his back will never improve to the extent that would enable
him to lift more than thirty pounds. He claims that his back prevents him from playing
sports and socializing. However, he admits that he can lead an independent life
without the assistance of others. He can take a shower, brush his teeth, and dress
himself without assistance. He also performs household chores such as cooking and
doing dishes. He also admits that he can lift a gallon of milk and can stand for three
or four hours before he needs to sit down. Although Holloway cannot continue
working as a tool adjustor because he cannot lift thirty pounds, the proper inquiry is not
whether his inability to lift thirty pounds prevents him from performing his job. The
proper inquiry is whether it impairs a task this is central to most peoples daily lives.
We sympathize with Mr. Holloway and understand that he has suffered because of his
back injury. However, we cannot find that his back impairment affects tasks that are
central to most people’s daily lives as defined by the Seventh Circuit. See Mack, 308
F.3d at 781-82 (holding that plaintiff's perceived limitations regarding lifting did not
interfere with tasks central to most people’s daily lives); Mays, 301 F.3d at 869
(indicating that a person that can lift ten pounds is not disabled and noting that
although the “number of Americans restricted by back problems to light work is legion
... [t]hey are not disabled.”); Wilcox v. American Stores, 2002 WL 31654938, *5

(N.D. Ill, 2002) (noting that plaintiff's restriction from lifting more than thirty pounds

6



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
DOCKETED
ANDREW HOLLOWAY, ) MAR 2 1 2003
Plaintiff,
VS. 02 € 3148
KLEIN TOOLS, INC.,
Defendant. ;
MEMORANDUM OPINION

CHARLES P. KOCORAS, Chief District Judge:

This matter is before the court on Defendant Klein Tools, Inc.’s (“Klein Tools”)
motion for summary judgment. For the reasons stated below, we grant the motion for
summary judgment.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Andrew Holloway (“Holloway”) began working as a tool adjuster for
Klein Tools on June 11, 1996. Holloway adjusted the rivets on pairs of pliers and
ensured that the blades on the pliers were properly sharpened. His regular job duties
also included the operation of a press machine that tightened the rivets on pairs of
pliers, material handling, and cleaning throughout the plant. Holloway injured his back

at work on July 21, 1997, and took a leave of absence for approximately two weeks.

a7


Holloway received ongoing medical treatment from Dr. Frank Phillips and was
temporarily assigned light duty at work. In March 1999, Dr. Phillips indicated that
Holloway’s back condition would not improve any further and that he would
permanently be unable to lift more than thirty pounds without harming his back. The
tool adjuster position involved lifting more than thirty pounds and thus Klein Tools
decided to have Holloway operate a punch press. A vocational rehabilitation
consultant hired by Klein Tools concluded that Holloway would be able to operate a
punch press. In accordance with the recommendations of the consultant, Klein Tools
intended to start Holloway on the punch press a few hours a day and to allow him to
gradually increase his hours. Holloway began working on the machine on March 29,
2000. He stopped after an hour of work because of pain in his back and finished out
the day doing light duty work. The next day Holloway was again ordered to operate
the punch press. After approximately forty-five minutes he stopped again because of
back pain. He told his leadman that he was going home and asked the leadman to
inform his supervisor. Holloway claims that he could not tell his supervisor directly
because his supervisor was in a meeting. Klein Tools then fired Holloway. Klein
Tools claims that it terminated Holloway’s employment because he walked off the job
without asking permission from his supervisor. Holloway has filed a pro se complaint

against Klein Tools, claiming that Klein Tools terminated him because of his alleged

2-