Anonymous ID: e2d3e2 Dec. 18, 2019, 10:35 a.m. No.7547325   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

>>7547171

member that time just-us roberts

argue for toyota in front of the

supreme cunt so (they) could get

away with crippling people?

yeah good times!

 

Williams claimed to be disabled and unable to perform her job at Toyota because of carpal tunnel syndrome and related problems. She successfully sued Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. for failure to provide "reasonable accommodations" as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. ยง12112(b)(5)(A).[2] Upon Toyota's appeal, the District Court issued a summary judgment that the Williams' impairment did not qualify as a "disability" under the ADA because her disability did not "substantially limit" any "major life activity" ยง12102(2)(A),[3] and that there was no evidence that she possessed a record of such disabilities.[1]

 

Under ADA, a "major life activity" includes actions of daily living such as "walking, seeing, hearing, learning, and working", not limitations specific to job-related tasks.[4]

 

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed this summary judgment, ruling that Williams's impairments substantially limited her ability to perform manual tasks and considered this a limitation in a "major life activity".[5] To demonstrate this disability, Williams showed that her manual disability extended to a "class" of manual activities that directly related to her ability to perform specific work tasks such as repetitive activities, the gripping of certain tools, and performing tasks while in a particular posture for extended time period. The court specifically disregarded evidence that she was able to perform personal care tasks and tasks involving household chores as irrelevant to its finding. It granted her a partial summary judgment that she was disabled under the ADA.[1]

 

The case was appealed to the Supreme Court. Future Chief Justice John Roberts argued the case for petitioner Toyota.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Motor_Manufacturing,_Kentucky,_Inc._v._Williams