Source: http://www.ipsofactoj.com/DecidedCases/international/2002/part05/int2002(05)-007.htm
Timestamp: 2017-09-26 02:08:33
Document Index: 261844788

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 5', '§ 12101', '§ 12102', '§12112', '§ 12102', '§12102', '§ 706', '§706', '§ 12201', '§ 12102', '§ 84', '§504', '§ 794', '§ 12102', '§1630', '§ 1630', '§ 12101', '§ 12102', '§12112']

Toyota Motor Manufacturing Inc v Williams [USSC]
Ipsofactoj.com: International Cases [2002] Part 5 Case 7 [USSC]
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA or Act), 104 Stat. 328, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (1994 ed. and Supp. V), a physical impairment that “substantially limits one or more .... major life activities” is a “disability.” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(A) (1994 ed.). Respondent, claiming to be disabled because of her carpal tunnel syndrome and other related impairments, sued petitioner, her former employer, for failing to provide her with a reasonable accommodation as required by the ADA. See §12112(b) (5)(A). The District Court granted summary judgment to petitioner, finding that respondent’s impairments did not substantially limit any of her major life activities. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed, finding that the impairments substantially limited respondent in the major life activity of performing manual tasks, and therefore granting partial summary judgment to respondent on the issue of whether she was disabled under the ADA. We conclude that the Court of Appeals did not apply the proper standard in making this determination because it analyzed only a limited class of manual tasks and failed to ask whether respondent’s impairments prevented or restricted her from performing tasks that are of central importance to most people’s daily lives.
Respondent began working at petitioner’s automobile manufacturing plant in Georgetown, Kentucky, in August 1990. She was soon placed on an engine fabrication assembly line, where her duties included work with pneumatic tools. Use of these tools eventually caused pain in respondent’s hands, wrists, and arms. She sought treatment at petitioner’s in-house medical service, where she was diagnosed with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and bilateral tendinitis. Respondent consulted a personal physician who placed her on permanent work restrictions that precluded her from lifting more than 20 pounds or from “frequently lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 10 pounds,” engaging in “constant repetitive .... flexion or extension of [her] wrists or elbows,” performing “overhead work,” or using “vibratory or pneumatic tools.” Brief for Respondent 2; App. 45—46.
Upon her return, petitioner placed respondent on a team in Quality Control Inspection Operations (QCIO). QCIO is responsible for four tasks:
“assembly paint”;
“paint second inspection”;
“shell body audit”; and
“ED surface repair.” App. 19
Respondent was initially placed on a team that performed only the first two of these tasks, and for a couple of years, she rotated on a weekly basis between them. In assembly paint, respondent visually inspected painted cars moving slowly down a conveyor. She scanned for scratches, dents, chips, or any other flaws that may have occurred during the assembly or painting process, at a rate of one car every 54 seconds. When respondent began working in assembly paint, inspection team members were required to open and shut the doors, trunk, and/or hood of each passing car. Sometime during respondent’s tenure, however, the position was modified to include only visual inspection with few or no manual tasks. Paint second inspection required team members to use their hands to wipe each painted car with a glove as it moved along a conveyor. Id., at 21—22. The parties agree that respondent was physically capable of performing both of these jobs and that her performance was satisfactory.
A short while after the shell body audit job was added to respondent’s rotations, she began to experience pain in her neck and shoulders. Respondent again sought care at petitioner’s in-house medical service, where she was diagnosed with myotendinitis bilateral periscapular, an inflammation of the muscles and tendons around both of her shoulder blades; myotendinitis and myositis bilateral forearms with nerve compression causing median nerve irritation; and thoracic outlet compression, a condition that causes pain in the nerves that lead to the upper extremities. Respondent requested that petitioner accommodate her medical conditions by allowing her to return to doing only her original two jobs in QCIO, which respondent claimed she could still perform without difficulty.
Respondent based her claim that she was “disabled” under the ADA on the ground that her physical impairments substantially limited her in
playing with her children;
all of which, she argued, constituted major life activities under the Act. Respondent also argued, in the alternative, that she was disabled under the ADA because she had a record of a substantially limiting impairment and because she was regarded as having such an impairment. See 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(B—C) (1994 ed.).
being regarded as having such an impairment.” §12102(2).
There are two potential sources of guidance for interpreting the terms of this definition–the regulations interpreting the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 87 Stat. 361, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 706(8)(B) (1988 ed.), and the EEOC regulations interpreting the ADA. Congress drew the ADA’s definition of disability almost verbatim from the definition of “handicapped individual” in the Rehabilitation Act, §706(8)(B), and Congress’ repetition of a well-established term generally implies that Congress intended the term to be construed in accordance with pre-existing regulatory interpretations. Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624, 631 (1998); FDIC v. Philadelphia Gear Corp., 476 U.S. 426, 437—438 (1986); ICC v. Parker, 326 U.S. 60, 65 (1945). As we explained in Bragdon v. Abbott, supra, at 631, Congress did more in the ADA than suggest this construction; it adopted a specific statutory provision directing as follows:
42 U.S.C. § 12201(a) (1994 ed.)
To qualify as disabled under subsection (A) of the ADA’s definition of disability, a claimant must initially prove that he or she has a physical or mental impairment. See 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2)(A). The Rehabilitation Act regulations issued by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) in 1977, which appear without change in the current regulations issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, define “physical impairment,” the type of impairment relevant to this case, to mean (45 CFR § 84.3(j)(2)(i) (2001))
The HEW regulations are of particular significance because at the time they were issued, HEW was the agency responsible for coordinating the implementation and enforcement of §504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794 (1994 ed. and Supp. V), which prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities by recipients of federal financial assistance. Bragdon v. Abbott, supra, at 632 (citing Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Darrone, 465 U.S. 624, 634 (1984)).
It is insufficient for individuals attempting to prove disability status under this test to merely submit evidence of a medical diagnosis of an impairment. Instead, the ADA requires those “claiming the Act’s protection .... to prove a disability by offering evidence that the extent of the limitation [caused by their impairment] in terms of their own experience .... is substantial.” Albertson’s, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, supra, at 567 (holding that monocular vision is not invariably a disability, but must be analyzed on an individual basis, taking into account the individual’s ability to compensate for the impairment). That the Act defines “disability” “with respect to an individual,” 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2), makes clear that Congress intended the existence of a disability to be determined in such a case-by-case manner. See Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., supra, at 483; Albertson’s, Inc. v. Kirkingburg, supra, at 566; cf. Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S., at 641—642 (relying on unchallenged testimony that the respondent’s HIV infection controlled her decision not to have a child, and declining to consider whether HIV infection is a per se disability under the ADA); 29 CFR pt. 1630, App. §1630.2(j) (2001) (“The determination of whether an individual has a disability is not necessarily based on the name or diagnosis of the impairment the person has, but rather on the effect of that impairment on the life of the individual”); ibid. (“The determination of whether an individual is substantially limited in a major life activity must be made on a case-by-case basis”).
The Court of Appeals relied on our opinion in Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., for the idea that a “class” of manual activities must be implicated for an impairment to substantially limit the major life activity of performing manual tasks. 224 F.3d, at 843. But Sutton said only that “[w]hen the major life activity under consideration is that of working, the statutory phrase ‘substantially limits’ requires .... that plaintiffs allege that they are unable to work in a broad class of jobs.” 527 U.S., at 491 (emphasis added). Because of the conceptual difficulties inherent in the argument that working could be a major life activity, we have been hesitant to hold as much, and we need not decide this difficult question today. In Sutton, we noted that even assuming that working is a major life activity, a claimant would be required to show an inability to work in a “broad range of jobs,” rather than a specific job. Id., at 492. But Sutton did not suggest that a class-based analysis should be applied to any major life activity other than working. Nor do the EEOC regulations. In defining “substantially limits,” the EEOC regulations only mention the “class” concept in the context of the major life activity of working. 29 CFR § 1630.2(j)(3) (2001) (“With respect to the major life activity of working[,] [t]he term substantially limits means significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills and abilities”). Nothing in the text of the Act, our previous opinions, or the regulations suggests that a class-based framework should apply outside the context of the major life activity of working.
At the same time, the Court of Appeals appears to have disregarded the very type of evidence that it should have focused upon. It treated as irrelevant “[t]he fact that [respondent] can .... ten[d] to her personal hygiene [and] carr[y] out personal or household chores.” Ibid. Yet household chores, bathing, and brushing one’s teeth are among the types of manual tasks of central importance to people’s daily lives, and should have been part of the assessment of whether respondent was substantially limited in performing manual tasks.
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990: § 12101, § 12102(2)(A), §12112(b)(5)(A)
Carniero, Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: The Cause Dictates the Treatment 66 Cleveland Clinic J. Medicine 159 (1999)
DeStefano, Nordstrom, & Uierkant: Long-term Symptom Outcomes of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome and its Treatment, 22A J. Hand Surgery 200 (1997)
Ouellette: Nerve Compression Syndromes of the Upper Extremity in Women, 17 Journal of Musculoskeletal Medicine 536 (2000)