On January 8, 2002, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision that significantly narrows the protections of the Americans With Disabilities Act.

In Toyota Motor Mfg., Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, No. 00-1089, assembly line worker Ella Williams developed carpel tunnel syndrome and other injuries caused by using power tools. Toyota assigned her to a paint inspection job that she performed satisfactorily for about two years. The company then modified her job, adding the task of applying oil to auto bodies with an applicator. Williams was unable to perform this task due to her impairment, and she sued to require Toyota to allow her to return to her previous job responsibilities as a "reasonable accommodation" under the Americans With Disabilities Act.

The Sixth Circuit ruled that Williams was a "qualified person with a disability" and protected by the ADA. The Supreme Court granted review, and AAJ filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Williams.

The Supreme Court reversed. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for a unanimous Court, ruled that the Sixth Circuit erred in focusing on Williams' inability to perform the specialized set of manual tasks required by her job. Rather, the court should have considered whether Williams' impairment substantially limits her in performing a broad range of tasks. "[H]ousehold chores, bathing, and brushing one's teeth are among the types of manual tasks of central importance to people's daily lives, and should have been part of the assessment."

This is the latest in a series of decisions by the Supreme Court narrowly interpreting the protections in the Americans With Disabilities Act. Congress enacted this portion of the ADA for the purpose of keeping people on the job if they can do the work with reasonable accommodation by their employers. Instead, the Court's decision will likely result in more people having to give up a paycheck and subsist on disability benefits, government programs or charity.