Opinion ID: 2974266
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Major Life Activity of Performing Manual Tasks

Text: In Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc., v. Williams, the Supreme Court differentiated between the major life activity of performing manual tasks and the major life activity of working. 534 U.S. 184, 200 (2002). The Court held that the inability to perform job-related activities due to carpal tunnel syndrome did not raise a genuine issue as to whether the plaintiff could perform manual tasks and that it was error to “focus[] on the [the claimant’s] inability to perform manual tasks associated only with her job.” Id. “[T]he manual tasks unique to any particular job are not necessarily important parts of most people’s lives. As a result, occupation-specific tasks may have only limited relevance to the manual task inquiry.” Id. at 201. We instead look to “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 associated with her specific job.” Id. at 200-01. The plaintiff’s impairment in Williams “caused her to avoid sweeping, to quit dancing, to occasionally seek help dressing, and to reduce how often she plays with her children, gardens, and drives long distances . . . these changes in her life did not amount to such severe restrictions in the activities that are of central importance to most people’s daily lives that they establish a manual task disability as a matter of law.” Id. at 202. Gentry fails to demonstrate that his supervisors believed he was unable to perform manual tasks in his daily life, and not just that they believed he was unable to perform certain nursing duties. -8- No. 05-3751 Gentry v. Summit Simply put, giving injections and satisfying the cardex procedures are not part of “the variety of tasks central to most people’s daily lives.” Id. at 200. The Supreme Court also explained that the major life activity of performing a manual task is not substantially limited simply because an employee’s physical or psychological impairment prevents him from performing a particular job. See id. at 200-02; see also E.E.O.C. v. Daimler Chrysler Corp., 111 Fed. Appx. 394, 399 (6th Cir. 2004) (unpublished) (“[T]he inquiry must focus on the effect of the impairment on the individual’s daily life, not on its effect on the individual ability to perform a specific job.”). Gentry only alleges that he was tested as to his ability to administer injections and the legibility of his penmanship. Burgs complained about Gentry’s penmanship and requested that he print so his writing could be understood. He does not allege that he was unable to perform the remaining requirements of his job as required. Therefore, the district court did not err in finding that Gentry did not establish that he was “regarded as” having a disability. There is no indication that Gentry’s supervisors were aware of any other problems related to Tourette’s Syndrome prior to the lawsuit. Thus, his difficulty with, inter alia, speaking, walking, bathing, participating in team sports, or extra time required to prepare for work, are not considered as part of Gentry’s “regarded as” claim. Finally, Gentry fails to show that his supervisors regarded his “tics” as being so severe or constant that they regarded him as disabled.