FACTS: The appellate court had determined that the employee was disabled under the ADA when she sought an accommodation from her former employer. The appellate court had not applied the proper standard in making that determination because it analyzed only a limited class of manual tasks, i.e., those tasks the employee performed on an engine fabrication assembly line. Moreover, the appellate court failed to ask whether the employee's impairments prevented or restricted her from performing tasks that were of central importance to most people's daily lives, such as tending to personal hygiene and carrying out personal or household chores. The Court concluded that to be substantially limited in performing manual tasks under the ADA, an individual was required to have an impairment that prevented or severely restricted the individual from doing activities that were of central importance to most people's daily lives and the impairment's impacts were required to be permanent or long-term. The Court declined to reinstate the trial court's grant of summary judgment on the manual task issue because the employer had not sought summary judgment in its petition for certiorari.
CONCLUSION: The judgment granting partial summary judgment to the employee was reversed and the case was remanded for further proceedings.
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?