On January 8, 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that people who are "disabled" under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) must have substantial limitations of their daily functional abilities, not only limitations that affect their job performance.
The ADA is the 1990 federal law that protects the civil rights of people with disabilities. Employers are required to make "reasonable accommodations" for disabled workers so they will be able to do their job. The law defines disability as "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities," "a record of such impairment," or "being regarded as having such an impairment". The law was designed to prevent discrimination against people with disabilities, especially in the workplace.
The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the definition of substantial limitations to major life activities "needs to be interpreted strictly," and therefore people are not disabled if their condition does not prevent them from performing daily tasks such as dressing, walking, toileting, etc.
The case, which is one of three ADA cases on the Supreme Court's 2002 calendar, involved a woman with a repetitive motion injury who asked her employer (Toyota) to assign her to a job involving minimal use of her arms. The decision means that, in the future, courts will have to consider whether a person's disability affects his functioning in daily living activities, along with his ability to do his job. Thus, people who do not have serious impairments that interfere with daily functional activities may not qualify for the protections of the law.
Check here to read about events on Capitol Hill, funding for rare-disease research, and other topics of interest from NORD's office in Washington, DC.