Supreme Court will clarify Americans with Disabilities Act in next term

On April 16^th, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear two separate employer appeals relating to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.   The first, by Toyota Motor Corporation, will require the Court to decide whether repetitive strain injury constitutes a disability under the ADA.   The second, by US Airways Group Inc., will clarify the employer''s obligation to accommodate disabled workers when the accommodation might conflict with an existing seniority system.  

The Toyota Case

Ella Williams developed carpal tunnel syndrome while working at a Georgetown Kentucky assembly plant in 1990.   Her initial suit against Toyota was dismissed on the grounds that she was still able to perform some tasks and day-to-day activities, so that her physical difficulties did not constitute a disability under the ADA. The U.S. Court of Appeals, 6^th Circuit, later ruled in her favor, saying that her impairment was sufficiently limiting to meet the law''s definition of "disability".  

The Americans with Disabilities Act defines disability as "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities".   Major life activities are "functions such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning and working".    

Toyota is now appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court on the grounds that Ms. Williams'' disability affected, but did not significantly restrict, a major life activity.   There is a lot at stake:   the National Association of Manufacturers has already filed a amicus brief supporting Toyota''s arguments and stating that there are 850,000 cases of carpal tunnel syndrome every year.   If the Supreme Court ruling allows carpal tunnel syndrome to be considered a disability rather than an injury, employers will be inundated with lawsuits, according to NAM.  

U.S. Airways Case

U.S. Airways is appealing a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9^th Circuit, concerning the reassignment of Robert Barnett from a cargo handler''s job to a position in the mailroom.   The 9^th Circuit court ordered the reassignment as a reasonable accommodation to which Mr. Barnett was entitled by virtue of his disability, even if it was at the expense of a non-disabled employee and in violation of an existing seniority system.  

Though no dates have been scheduled, both cases will be argued and decided in the next term, which begins in October 2001.

See also IR/Legal News Section