The Supreme Court's decision in Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams (2002) established that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) definition of disability was intended to be a demanding standard. The ruling implies that individuals must be visibly and functionally unable to perform specific, socially expected manual tasks that are of central importance to most people's daily lives before they are entitled to protection under the ADA.

Implications of the Toyota v. Williams Decision for the ADA

In a unanimous decision for Toyota, the court claimed that the proper standard for meeting a the demonstration of a substantial limitation in a major life activity of performing manual masks is not examining if the impairment prevents or restricts performing manual tasks that are of central importance to a person's daily life or is will be permanent, creating a long term impact. The argument that being unable to complete specific manual tasks at work is not sufficient enough to meet the protections under ADA.

Michigan State University

This case questions what the proper standard under the ADA is when determining if an individual is substantially limited in performing manual tasks. 

Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc., v. Williams (2002)

Toyota Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 US 184 (2002)

In 1997, Ella Williams was fired from her position in the automobile assembly line at Toyota Motor Manufacturing who claimed the firing was due to her poor attendance record. Williams claimed to have carpal tunnel syndrome, leading her to sue Toyota for failing to meet the reasonable accommodations as required in the ADA.

Learn Before

Related

Learn After