Employment Law: Supreme Court further refines ADA definitions

The United States Supreme Court agreed this year to review several problematic areas with the Americans with Disabilities Act, as it did a couple of years ago. These decisions should assist one in better understanding the ADA's coverage.

In 1999, the United States Supreme Court began to analyze what it means to be "disabled." In Sutton v. United Airlines Inc., the court decided that a "disability" is to be determined, taking into account corrective measures, such as eyeglasses. This year, the court continued to define a "disability" and focused specifically on the statute's language as the statute only protects "qualified individuals with a disability."

Under the ADA, an "individual with a disability" is one with a physical or mental impairment that "substantially limits a major life activity." According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Com-mission regulations, "major life activities" means functions such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning and working. So, how does one determine if an impairment substantially limits a major life activity?

This question has been particularly troublesome when applied to individuals who could no longer perform their particular jobs. These individuals claimed they were "disabled" because they were substantially limited in the major life activity of "working." Is this enough to be considered "disabled" under the statutory language? The Supreme Court answered the question on Jan. 8.

In Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, the U.S. Supreme Court held that one's substantial limitation must extend beyond that individual's work or the performance of manual tasks. In this case, the plaintiff claimed her carpal tunnel syndrome caused her a substantial limitation in her ability to perform manual tasks. She stated her medical restrictions prevented her from lifting more than 20 pounds, frequently carrying objects weighing up to 10 pounds, or engaging in constant repetitive work requiring the extension of her wrist and elbow. The Court of Appeals found that these impairments constituted a disability because it prevented her from performing different types of assembly line work. However, such impairments did not prevent the plaintiff from performing other non-work related tasks such as completing household chores and caring for herself. As a result, the Supreme Court ruled she did not have a disability.

The Supreme Court stated that "major life activities" refer to activities that are of essential importance to one's daily life. Therefore, if an individual claims they are substantially limited in performing a major life activity related to "work" performing manual tasks that individual must demonstrate that the manual tasks are central to their daily life. In sum, the court held that an individual must have an impairment that prevents or severely restricts the individual from doing activities that are of central importance to most people's daily lives. Since the tasks individuals perform in their jobs are rarely going to be "of central importance to most people's daily lives," they are not significant in determining if an individual is substantially limited in a major life activity. The court also stated that a "disability" must be permanent or long-term.

Another ADA case of interest, on April 29, the Supreme Court in U.S. Airways v. Barnett, stated, as a general rule, that an established seniority system may take priority over the accommodation needs of a disabled worker. The court said there is a presumption in favor of an established seniority system.

In U.S. Airways, the employee injured his back while working as a baggage handler at an airport. He was temporarily moved to a mailroom job to accommodate his disability. He lost this job when two employees with more seniority "bumped" him and received the job under the seniority system. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the seniority system but cautioned employers that a disabled employee may be entitled to retain a job as a reasonable accommodation if the employer has made frequent exceptions to the seniority system. In other words, seniority may not be used to "bump" the disabled employee out of a job.

Finally, this summer, the court is expected to issue a decision addressing another debated area of the ADA. In Chevron v. Echazabal, the court will consider whether an employer can keep a worker from filling a job that could be harmful to that worker's health. In addition, it is hoped that the court can further clarify the ADA provision that allows employers to deny jobs to disabled individuals if the disabled worker would pose a "direct threat" to other workers as well.

(Bob Lawson Jr. practices labor and employment law representing management and is a partner with the law firm of Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin LLP in Springfield.)