WASHINGTON, Nov. 7 (UPI) -- The Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday on the scope of the Americans with Disabilities Act in a case that could have a profound effect on the American workplace.
The 1990 ADA bans discrimination against the handicapped, and among other things, requires employers to "reasonably" accommodate a worker whose disability affects a "major life activity."
At issue is whether the law's protections cover a limited group or a broad spectrum of workers. Specifically, the justices are being asked to decide whether a limited impairment associated with a specific job makes someone eligible for protection under the ADA.
A lawyer for Toyota Manufacturing of Kentucky, supported by the Bush administration, told the justices Wednesday that the law's scope is relatively narrow.
In contrast, a lawyer for a former Toyota employee tried to make the case for a broader interpretation.
The Toyota subsidiary in Germantown, Ky., employed about 7,500 people when the case began. Most of the Germantown facility contains assembly lines for cars sold in the United States and abroad.
Ella Williams joined the company in 1990 as an assembly line worker. However, shortly afterwards she developed a repetitive motion injury -- bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome in her wrists and bilateral tendinitis in her neck and arms.
The company says the injuries apparently came from having to grip vibrating pneumatic tools to perform her job.
Toyota of Kentucky says it tried to accommodate her injuries -- the company actually settled an earlier ADA lawsuit -- transferring her to quality control inspection.
In that capacity, her work was confined to two of four stations normally required of such an inspector. As part of her new duties, she visually inspected painted cars as they moved along an assembly line. At her other station, she was required to use both arms to wipe down the cars.
After three years, the company said she would have to rotate on all four stations, the same as other quality inspectors. The expanded work included wiping down cars with "highlight oil," a job that included gripping a block of wood with a sponge attached to the end.
Williams again complained of pain in her neck, arms, shoulders and hands after several weeks doing the new duties. She requested a transfer to her old job, saying that she could do it, but the company declined.
The company says she eventually refused to show up for work, and was considered to have voluntarily resigned.
However, Williams filed suit in federal court against the company under the American with Disabilities Act.
A federal judge ruled for the company, but an appeals court ruled for Williams, saying her claimed disability affected a "major life activity" -- a requirement under the act -- such as performing manual tasks.
The company then asked the Supreme Court for review.
Williams' lawyers unsuccessfully opposed the review, contending that her disability did indeed affect a "major life activity" as required under the ADA.
"Ella Williams is 41 years of age, is married and has children," they said in an opposing brief. "She reads at the ninth-grade level, and her mathematical skills are at the 10th-grade level. She described her vocational background as, 'Production work and factory work's what I've known my whole life.' "
Speaking for Toyota on Wednesday, Washington attorney John Roberts Jr. told the justices that the appeals court used an incorrect interpretation of the law.
"Repeatedly wiping down cars ... is not a 'major life activity' ..." Roberts said. In order to win a claim under the ADA, a "plaintiff must show a substantial limitation in a broad range of manual tasks."
As for Williams, she "didn't show an exclusion from a broad class of jobs," Roberts argued. "She just showed that some jobs were not open to her."
Assistant U.S Solicitor General Barbara McDowell supported Roberts.
Speaking for Williams, attorney Robert Rosenbaum of Lexington, Ky., urged the justices to rule for his client, but said they should not necessarily affirm the appeals court.
The appeals court used an incorrect analysis when it said "an individual must show that their limitation affects their work," Rosenbaum said.
Justice Anthony Kennedy asked Rosenbaum whether work itself was a "major life activity" covered by the ADA.
"It is my opinion that work is a 'major life activity,' " Rosenbaum said, but a plaintiff should not have to prove under the ADA that a disability is related to the plaintiff's work, despite the appeals court ruling.
"I don't think that is the law, and I don't think that it should be the law," Rosenbaum said.
Several justices, particularly Justice Antonin Scalia, expressed doubt that Congress meant to protect those suffering from repetitive motion injury under the ADA.
Scalia questioned whether Rosenbaum's interpretation would include too large a portion of the U.S. population under the ADA umbrella.
Congress recognized that the ADA would affect 43 million people, or 17.3 percent of the population, when it enacted the ADA, Rosenbaum replied.
Scalia countered by saying that when you factor in "wheelchair-bound ... and home-bound people," "it brings you pretty high up to that figure."
However, Rosenbaum continued to contradict Scalia, saying the justice was wrong on the record.
"The ADA is about working," Rosenbaum said. "It's about a lawsuit to keep a job."
The Supreme Court should hand down a decision in the case sometime over the next few months.
(No. 00-1089, Toyota Manufacturing of Ky. vs. Williams)
