Supreme Court Narrows the Definition of Disability

Employers won a major victory and America’s disability law was eroded by a Supreme Court ruling that narrowed the definition of what it means to be disabled.

The court unanimously decided that Toyota Motor Co. was within its legal rights when it dismissed an assembly-line worker with carpal tunnel syndrome. The employee charged the automaker wasn’t doing enough to accommodate her disability. But the court determined that the Americans With Disabilities Act didn’t cover the worker, even though she was unable to perform certain job-related tasks.

To be considered disabled, the court ruled, an employee must be unable to perform “the variety of tasks central to most people’s daily lives.” If a person can take care of activities like “household chores, bathing, and brushing one’s teeth,” it’s not likely that a disability exists, the court stated, regardless of any pain on the job.

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote: “It is insufficient for individuals attempting to prove disability status … to merely submit evidence of a medical diagnosis of an impairment.”

This is a victory for employers and can help your company in the following ways:

Better understanding. Companies won’t have to look at every workplace injury as a potential disability requiring some accommodation. Employers can narrow their view to the job limitations.

Fewer accommodations. The ruling may take some of the pressure off employers to make special arrangements. The key is finding the middle ground and the ruling makes it easier. But don’t think you can refuse accommodation in questionable cases. You can still face workers’ compensation claims.

Reduced legal costs. Some lawsuits may be dropped or thrown out of court as a result of the new ruling. And employees are likely to be discouraged from filing suits. More than 140,000 claims of disability discrimination have been filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission since enforcement of the ADA began in 1992. Certainly companies may still face legal action from employees with legitimate cases. But marginal cases are less likely to get to court.

Easier hiring practices. Having a narrower definition of disability lets companies relax somewhat in their hiring practices and feel less leery about hiring people with handicaps.

The Story Continues

While the ruling limits the law to truly disabled employees, employers aren’t off the hook completely. The court warned against assuming the ruling will put severe limits on future cases.

“An individualized assessment of the effect of an impairment is particularly necessary when the impairment is one such as carpal tunnel syndrome, whose symptoms vary widely from person to person,” the Justices said. The court sent this case back for a lower court to reconsider the new guidelines.

The decision also doesn’t slam the door in the face of all employees who suffer carpal tunnel syndrome. If the pain is crippling, long-term or permanent, and keeps the sufferers from basic life tasks, they may still be able to claim disability. A brief in this case filed by the Levi Strauss Co. says that some 59.4 million Americans are projected to suffer from chronic musculoskeletal disorders, such as carpal tunnel syndrome, by 2020.

The ruling was another in a series of court decisions that raises the bar in proving a disability. In an earlier ruling, for example, the court narrowed the definition of a disability by saying the law doesn’t include most conditions that can be corrected, such as eyesight problems that can be improved with eyeglasses.

Significantly, the court still refused to rule on whether work is, per se, a major life activity. Because the court didn’t give any real guidance on this issue, the ADA will require further interpretation by the courts in the future.