366:
specific job tasks. Therefore, the determination of whether an impairment rises to the level of a disability is not limited to activities in the workplace solely, but rather to manual tasks in life in general. When the
Supreme Court applied this standard, it found that the Court of Appeals had incorrectly determined the presence of a disability because it relied solely on her inability to perform specific manual work tasks which was insufficient in proving the presence of a disability. The Court of Appeals should have taken into account the evidence presented that Williams retained the ability to do personal tasks and household chores, such activities being the nature of tasks most people do in their daily lives, and placed too much emphasis on her job disability. Since the evidence showed that Williams was performing normal daily tasks, it ruled that the Court of Appeals erred when it found Williams to be disabled.
302:. Her personal physician placed her on certain restrictions regarding her movements, and Toyota assigned her to various alternative jobs to accommodate her limitations. When Williams missed work for medical reasons due to job-related tasks, she filed a claim under the Kentucky Workers’ Compensation Act. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §342.0011 et seq. (1997 and Supp. 2000). This claim was settled between the parties, and Williams returned to work. However, she remained dissatisfied with Toyota's efforts to accommodate her work restrictions and brought an action in the
42:
340:
activities that directly related to her ability to perform specific work tasks such as repetitive activities, the gripping of certain tools, and performing tasks while in a particular posture for extended time period. The court specifically disregarded evidence that she was able to perform personal care tasks and tasks involving household chores as irrelevant to its finding. It granted her a partial summary judgment that she was disabled under the ADA.
441:
293:
The respondent, Ella
Williams, an automobile assembly line worker, was first employed by the petitioner, Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc., at Toyota's automobile manufacturing plant in Georgetown, Kentucky, in 1990, where she worked on an assembly line using pneumatic tools. Eventually she
339:
reversed this summary judgment, ruling that
Williams's impairments substantially limited her ability to perform manual tasks and considered this a limitation in a "major life activity". To demonstrate this disability, Williams showed that her manual disability extended to a "class" of manual
365:
The "major life activity" definition in evaluating the performance of manual tasks focuses the inquiry on whether
Williams was unable to perform a range of tasks central to most people in carrying out the activities of daily living. The issue is not whether Williams was unable to perform her
306:
claiming that Toyota had refused to accommodate her disability, a suit that was again settled, and she returned to work as a
Quality Control Inspection Operations (QCIO) worker which involved the visual inspection of vehicles. Both parties agreed that she was able to perform these duties
310:
Although the parties disagree on the facts from this point on, in any case
Williams was restricted by her physician from work of any kind; she was fired and eventually she sued her former employer for failing to accommodate her disability reasonably and for terminating her employment.
319:
Williams claimed to be disabled and unable to perform her job at Toyota because of carpal tunnel syndrome and related problems. She successfully sued Toyota Motor
Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. for failure to provide "reasonable accommodations" as required by the
328:
that the
Williams' impairment did not qualify as a "disability" under the ADA because her disability did not "substantially limit" any "major life activity" §12102(2)(A), and that there was no evidence that she possessed a record of such disabilities.
447:
693:
303:
703:
584:
428:
387:
138:
83:
130:
332:
Under ADA, a "major life activity" includes actions of daily living such as "walking, seeing, hearing, learning, and working", not limitations specific to job-related tasks.
307:
satisfactorily. However, in the fall of 1996, the job duties changed and
Williams was required to perform some additional physical tasks, which caused Williams difficulty.
551:"A showing that a claimant is merely unable to perform some particular manual work task is not sufficient to establish disability under the American with Disabilities Act"
718:
659:
698:
688:
392:
708:
321:
274:
242:
382:
479:
461:
344:
270:
46:
508:
498:
336:
550:
294:
began to experience pain in her hands, wrists and arms, for which she sought treatment and was diagnosed with bilateral
369:
Therefore, the Court of
Appeals’ judgment granting partial summary judgment to Williams was reversed and the case was
663:
281:
in favor of the respondent, Ella Williams, that had qualified her inability to perform manual job-related tasks as a
604:
256:
370:
373:
back to the District Court of Appeals for further deliberations consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion.
640:
359:
295:
176:
588:
432:
142:
75:
17:
622:
204:
631:
504:
168:
160:
105:
667; 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Service 149; 2002 Daily Journal DAR 197; 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 39
613:
325:
278:
713:
347:
200:
188:
595:
465:
536:
126:
483:
435:
212:
180:
682:
98:
324:(ADA), 42 U.S.C. §12112(b)(5)(A). Upon Toyota's appeal, the District Court issued a
192:
78:
102:
554:
65:
Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Incorporated, Petitioner v. Ella Williams
299:
282:
273:
interpreted the meaning of the phrase "substantially impairs" as used in the
134:
94:
90:
649:
277:. It reversed the decision by the Court of Appeals to grant a partial
304:
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
123:
41:
660:"Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky, Inc. v. Williams, Ella (01/08/2002)"
694:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court
448:
public domain material from this U.S government document
581:
Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams
425:
Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams
266:
Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams
35:
Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams
388:
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 534
343:The case was appealed to the Supreme Court. Future
236:
225:
220:
149:
115:
110:
70:
60:
53:
34:
97:400; 70 U.S.L.W. 4050; 12 Am. Disabilities Cas. (
704:United States statutory interpretation case law
269:, 534 U.S. 184 (2002), was a case in which the
532:Williams v. Toyota Motor Mfg., Kentucky, Inc.
120:Williams v. Toyota Motor Mfg., Kentucky, Inc.
8:
31:
420:
418:
416:
414:
412:
410:
408:
393:List of United States Supreme Court cases
719:Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
404:
350:argued the case for petitioner Toyota.
322:Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
275:Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
243:Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
18:Toyota Motor Manufacturing v. Williams
553:. www.jus.state.nc.us. Archived from
29:2002 United States Supreme Court case
7:
383:ADA Litigation in the United States
271:Supreme Court of the United States
47:Supreme Court of the United States
25:
699:United States disability case law
689:United States Supreme Court cases
662:. onthedocket.org. Archived from
591:184 (2002) is available from:
101:) 993; 67 Cal. Comp. Cas 60; 200
549:North Carolina Justice Academy.
439:
40:
358:Writing for the court, Justice
709:2002 in United States case law
337:Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
1:
735:
650:Oyez (oral argument audio)
446:This article incorporates
257:ADA Amendments Act of 2008
539: (6th Cir. 2000).
255:
248:
241:
154:
39:
497:Worth, Richard (2008).
56:Decided January 8, 2002
54:Argued November 7, 2001
296:carpal tunnel syndrome
466:§ 12112(b)(5)(A)
537:224 F.3d 840
362:issued the opinion.
229:O'Connor, joined by
89:122 S. Ct. 681; 151
641:Library of Congress
360:Sandra Day O'Connor
205:Ruth Bader Ginsburg
177:Sandra Day O'Connor
666:on January 8, 2009
557:on October 9, 2006
484:§ 12102(2)(A)
165:Associate Justices
262:
261:
161:William Rehnquist
16:(Redirected from
726:
675:
673:
671:
658:Halloran, John.
654:
648:
645:
639:
636:
630:
627:
621:
618:
612:
609:
603:
600:
594:
567:
566:
564:
562:
546:
540:
534:
528:
522:
521:
519:
517:
494:
488:
486:
476:
470:
468:
458:
452:
443:
442:
422:
326:summary judgment
279:summary judgment
150:Court membership
44:
43:
32:
21:
734:
733:
729:
728:
727:
725:
724:
723:
679:
678:
669:
667:
657:
652:
646:
643:
637:
634:
628:
625:
619:
616:
610:
607:
601:
598:
592:
576:
571:
570:
560:
558:
548:
547:
543:
530:
529:
525:
515:
513:
511:
500:Workers' Rights
496:
495:
491:
478:
477:
473:
460:
459:
455:
440:
423:
406:
401:
379:
356:
317:
291:
251:
203:
201:Clarence Thomas
191:
189:Anthony Kennedy
179:
169:John P. Stevens
145:970 (2001).
106:
55:
49:
30:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
732:
730:
722:
721:
716:
711:
706:
701:
696:
691:
681:
680:
677:
676:
655:
623:Google Scholar
575:
574:External links
572:
569:
568:
541:
523:
509:
489:
471:
453:
403:
402:
400:
397:
396:
395:
390:
385:
378:
375:
355:
352:
316:
313:
298:and bilateral
290:
287:
260:
259:
253:
252:
249:
246:
245:
239:
238:
234:
233:
227:
223:
222:
218:
217:
216:
215:
213:Stephen Breyer
181:Antonin Scalia
166:
163:
158:
152:
151:
147:
146:
117:
113:
112:
108:
107:
88:
72:
68:
67:
62:
61:Full case name
58:
57:
51:
50:
45:
37:
36:
28:
24:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
731:
720:
717:
715:
712:
710:
707:
705:
702:
700:
697:
695:
692:
690:
687:
686:
684:
665:
661:
656:
651:
642:
633:
624:
615:
606:
605:CourtListener
597:
590:
586:
582:
578:
577:
573:
556:
552:
545:
542:
538:
533:
527:
524:
512:
510:9780761425748
506:
502:
501:
493:
490:
485:
481:
475:
472:
467:
463:
457:
454:
451:
449:
438: (2002).
437:
434:
430:
426:
421:
419:
417:
415:
413:
411:
409:
405:
398:
394:
391:
389:
386:
384:
381:
380:
376:
374:
372:
367:
363:
361:
353:
351:
349:
346:
345:Chief Justice
341:
338:
333:
330:
327:
323:
315:Legal history
314:
312:
308:
305:
301:
297:
289:Facts of case
288:
286:
284:
280:
276:
272:
268:
267:
258:
254:
250:Superseded by
247:
244:
240:
235:
232:
228:
224:
219:
214:
210:
206:
202:
198:
194:
190:
186:
182:
178:
174:
170:
167:
164:
162:
159:
157:Chief Justice
156:
155:
153:
148:
144:
140:
136:
132:
128:
125:
121:
118:
114:
109:
104:
100:
96:
92:
86:
85:
80:
77:
73:
69:
66:
63:
59:
52:
48:
38:
33:
27:
19:
668:. Retrieved
664:the original
580:
559:. Retrieved
555:the original
544:
531:
526:
514:. Retrieved
499:
492:
474:
456:
445:
424:
368:
364:
357:
348:John Roberts
342:
334:
331:
318:
309:
292:
265:
264:
263:
237:Laws applied
230:
221:Case opinion
208:
196:
193:David Souter
184:
172:
119:
111:Case history
82:
64:
26:
103:A.L.R. Fed.
683:Categories
670:October 7,
561:October 7,
516:October 7,
399:References
300:tendinitis
283:disability
95:U.S. LEXIS
93:615; 2002
480:42 U.S.C.
462:42 U.S.C.
231:unanimous
137:granted,
91:L. Ed. 2d
71:Citations
579:Text of
377:See also
371:remanded
354:Decision
226:Majority
131:6th Cir.
614:Findlaw
596:Cornell
133:2000);
714:Toyota
653:
647:
644:
638:
635:
632:Justia
629:
626:
620:
617:
611:
608:
602:
599:
593:
535:,
507:
482:
464:
444:
427:,
211:
209:·
207:
199:
197:·
195:
187:
185:·
183:
175:
173:·
171:
122:, 224
587:
431:
141:
135:cert.
116:Prior
672:2009
589:U.S.
563:2009
518:2009
505:ISBN
433:U.S.
335:The
143:U.S.
124:F.3d
84:more
76:U.S.
74:534
585:534
436:184
429:534
139:532
127:840
99:BNA
79:184
685::
583:,
503:.
407:^
285:.
674:.
565:.
520:.
487:.
469:.
450:.
129:(
87:)
81:(
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.