In the first of three cases the U.S. Supreme Court is considering this term that involve the Americans with Disabilities Act, the high court has issued a ruling that will make it harder for workers to prove they are entitled to reasonable accommodation under federal disabilities law. However, as we’ll explain, the new decision, which involved a Toyota assembly line worker with carpal tunnel syndrome, has limited application in California because of the state’s stricter disability bias law.
Worker Seeks Accommodation
Ella Williams developed carpal tunnel syndrome while working on a Toyota assembly line in Kentucky. After her doctor restricted her from lifting more than 20 pounds or making repetitive wrist and elbow motions, she was reassigned to a paint inspector job. Williams performed the job without difficulty—until she was assigned the added duty of wiping highlight oil onto the cars, which required holding her arms at shoulder height for several hours at a time. She suffered pain in her shoulder blades and asked to be relieved of this task, without success. Williams began missing work and eventually was fired for poor attendance.
Join us this fall in San Francisco for the California Employment Law Update conference, a 3-day event that will teach you everything you need to know about new laws and regulations, and your compliance obligations, for the year ahead—it’s one-stop shopping at its best.
Lawsuit Ensues
Williams sued Toyota, claiming the automaker violated the ADA by not reasonably accommodating her disability. Toyota responded that Williams was not disabled as defined by the ADA.
A federal appeals court ruled that Williams was disabled because she was substantially limited from the major life activity of performing manual tasks. The court relied on Williams’ inability to perform various manual assembly line, product handling and building trade jobs that require gripping tools and repetitive work. Toyota appealed.
Activities Must Be Of Central Importance To Daily Life
The Supreme Court ruled that for an employee to be substantially limited in the major life activity of performing manual tasks, the impairment must severely limit the person from doing tasks—on a permanent or long-term basis—that are central to daily life, and not just those associated with a particular job. In this case, the high court said that the appeals court improperly focused on Williams’ inability to perform certain manual tasks required in her specialized assembly line job. The correct inquiry was whether Williams was severely restricted from performing everyday manual tasks, such as household chores and brushing her teeth.
The court noted evidence that Williams could still perform personal hygiene, tend her garden, fix breakfast, do laundry and pick up around the house. Thus, the appeals court should not have ruled that Williams was substantially limited in performing manual tasks. The high court sent the case back for further consideration.
The Supreme Court also noted that an individual assessment is required of an impairment’s impact on major life activities. This is true particularly when the condition, like carpal tunnel syndrome, may vary widely in symptoms, severity and duration.
Practical Impact
The California Fair Employment and Housing Act differs from the ADA in several key respects that greatly reduce this ruling’s importance for California employers. The FEHA coverage is broader than the ADA and makes clear that working is a major life activity, regardless of whether the impairment affects a broad range of employment or a specific job. And an impairment need only make achieving a major life activity “difficult” rather than “substantially limited.”
Harold Brody, an employment attorney with the Los Angeles firm of Proskauer Rose, told CEA that had this case been brought under the FEHA, a California court would probably have ruled for Williams. That’s because the high court’s focus on how the impairment impacts tasks essential to daily life doesn’t really apply under California law. Rather, according to Brody, under the FEHA, if a condition makes working at a specific job more difficult, you don’t have to go any further.
If it’s unclear whether an impairment amounts to a disability, or if an existing accommodation isn’t working, the best practical solution is to try to accommodate the worker. You can be liable for not cooperating with a disabled employee to determine whether the person needs an accommodation and to explore available options, even if no workable accommodation can ultimately be found.