US Supreme Court Limits The Scope Of The ADA

By Rebecca Ceniceros and Susan Denious

In a recent decision, Toyota Motor Manufacturing v. Williams, the United States Supreme Court sharply narrowed the class of persons protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Court ruled that employees affected with carpal tunnel syndrome must do more than assert that their condition prevents them from performing job-related tasks. Rather, the Court held, persons claiming disability discrimination must show impairment so severe that they are prevented from doing commonplace activities that are of central importance to most people’s daily lives. Examples, it observed, were the plaintiff-employee’s ability to perform daily tasks such as household chores, bathing, and brushing her teeth.

This decision changes the focus, in ADA cases, from an inquiry into whether employees can perform the duties of specific jobs to the much broader question of whether they function normally in ordinary aspects of life. Since fewer impairments reach this degree of severity, fewer employees are protected by the ADA and fewer employees can successfully sue for violation of its terms.

California employers nonetheless continue to face special challenges. California’s disability discrimination statute does not, like the ADA, require a disability that "substantially limits a major life activity." Its coverage is much broader. It applies to employees who have a disorder or condition that merely "limits" a major life activity, that is, makes a major life activity "difficult." This statement of the statute’s coverage is, on its face, lenient and employee friendly; it may well allow more rather than fewer discrimination claims to proceed.

This portion of California’s disability discrimination statute is relatively new; it has been effective only since January 2001. Thus, employers have yet to see how California courts will apply it to fully realize its impact.