Americans with Disabilities Act - gutted for good? 02-05-02
- By Ann F. Kiernan, Esq.

In January, 2002, the U. S. Supreme Court and a state appeals court further narrowed employee rights under federal and state disability laws. Employers already were winning 92% of all cases brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), so it may be close to impossible for employees to win these cases now.

Appeals Court Holds Overtime Is An Essential Function for Systems Engineers

Thomas Davis was a systems engineer for Microsoft for nine years, regularly working 60 to 80 hours a week, as did everyone else in the department. When Davis contracted hepatitis C, his doctor told him to cut back to 40 hours, which Microsoft temporarily allowed him to do.

Later, Microsoft told Davis that if he could not work the longer hours, he had to resign or find another job within the company, and gave him six months to find a position. But Microsoft refused to help Davis figure out which of the hundreds of open positions at the company could accommodate his 40-hour restriction. Davis applied for one job, but it required 60 to 90 hours. After the six months were up, he was terminated.

Davis sued Microsoft under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (which is substantially the same as the federal ADA) and won a jury verdict of $2.3 million. But the Court of Appeals reversed. The court held that, given the nature of the systems engineer job, overtime was an essential function, which Microsoft did not have to eliminate.

The case was sent back for retrial on the issue of whether Microsoft had to duty to do more to help Davis find a 40-hour position.

Supreme Court Narrows Definition of Disability

Ella Williams was an automobile assembler for Toyota. She developed carpal tunnel syndrome, and claimed she was disabled because she was substantially limited in performing manual tasks. In a unanimous opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court held that even if Williams couldn't perform the manual tasks associated with her job, she was not necessarily disabled under the ADA.

To meet that standard, "the central inquiry must be whether the claimant is unable to perform the tasks central to most peoples daily lives." The Court said that if Williams could still perform daily activities such as brush her teeth, bathe, tend her flower garden, cook, do laundry, and pick up around the house, she could not be considered disabled.

What Do These Cases Mean to You?

• Employers and employees have to cooperate in finding reasonable accommodations.
• Mere diagnosis of a condition - such as carpal tunnel syndrome - is not enough. Only conditions that result in severe restrictions on daily life activities will be considered disabilities under the ADA.
• Remember that state laws in California, New York, New Jersey and other states protect workers with physical or mental conditions that are not serious enough to get federal protection. So get expert advice from your Human Resources or Legal staff whenever there is an issue about employee medical restrictions.

Davis v. Microsoft Corp., 2002 Wash. App. LEXIS 20 (Wash.. Ct. App. 2002); Toyota Motor Manufacturing v. Williams, ____ U.S. ____, 122 S. Ct. 681 (2002)

Information here is correct at the time it is posted. Case decisions cited here may be reversed. Please do not rely on this information without consulting an attorney first.