News Release

NCD #02-344
January 8, 2002
Contact: Mark S. Quigley
202-272-2004
202-272-2074 TTY
mquigley@ncd.gov

National Council on Disability Deeply Troubled by Supreme Court Ruling Limiting Scope of Disability Law

WASHINGTON--The National Council on Disability is deeply troubled by today's Supreme Court ruling in Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Ella Williams (No. 00-1989), in which the Court once again narrowed the scope of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in a manner inconsistent with Congress and the American people's intent in its enactment.

According to NCD chairperson Marca Bristo, "Today's Supreme Court decision would prevent many individuals whom Congress intended ADA to cover from receiving its protection that they may need to secure and maintain employment."

In the ruling, the Court said that an assembly line worker with carpal tunnel syndrome was not entitled to special treatment on the job under ADA. Although the ruling does not mean that a person with carpal tunnel syndrome or other partial disabilities is automatically excluded from ADA protection, it will make it harder to prove such claims. It raises the specter of still more individuals being barred from protections against exclusion that ADA was intended to provide.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled today that the proper standard for demonstrating "a substantial limitation in the major life activity of performing manual tasks" is whether or not the impairment prevents or restricts performing manual tasks that are "of central importance to most people's daily lives" and has "permanent or long-term" impact. The Court found that being limited in performing a "class of manual activities", (i.e., activities affecting the ability to perform specific manual tasks at work) is an insufficient standard for meeting the definition of a qualified individual with a disability under ADA.

The record reflects that Ms. Williams is significantly restricted in performing a range of manual activities across both her personal and her work life. Since 1992, her manual activity involving repetitive activity, lifting, and overhead work has been permanently restricted. Daily pain and discomfort significantly restricted her ability to engage in a range of other manual activities. "Substantially limited," according to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's (EEOC) regulatory definition, means restricted "in the manner, condition and duration under which the major life activity is performed in comparison to the average person." There is simply no plausible basis for concluding that Ms. Williams is not significantly restricted as compared to the "average person". The notion that, in order to be deemed "disabled" under ADA, she must be severely restricted in performing manual tasks of central importance to most people's daily lives invokes a misguided notion about ADA. It suggests that people must be "truly disabled," i.e., visibly and functionally unable to perform in certain specific, socially expected ways before they are entitled to the protection of law. Consistent with Congress' intent, ADA and the EEOC regulations were designed to protect people with disabilities who have the talent, skills, abilities, and desire to participate actively in society but are precluded from doing so because of the refusal or failure to make reasonable accommodations.

NCD's amicus brief can be found at http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/toyota_amicus.html.

For more information, contact Mark S. Quigley at 202-272-2008 , Jeff Rosen at 202-272-2124, or Kathleen Blank at 202-272-2019.