Background and Procedural History of case
The plaintiff in the case (Williams) was an employee to the Toyota Motor company. William reported hands and arm pain following the strenuous manual tasks he used to perform in his employer’s firm ( Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams, 2002) . Williams was diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome hence leading to imposition of work restrictions by Toyota. The company later reassigned Williams to quality control duties. Rotation of quality control staff lead William to start performing new tasks that re-triggered her shoulder and neck pain. Toyota denied William’s request to allow her perform only quality control duties. Williams’s condition made her start missing work on frequent basis thus leading to her termination of employment by Toyota citing poor attendance. The move by Toyota pushed William to file a legal suit alleging disability discrimination which contravened the American Disability Act.
Conclusion (Final findings of the courts)
The district jury sitting ruled that William’s condition fall short of disability threshold stipulation in the ADA ( Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams, 2002) . However, the US appeal court reversed the district ruling. Later, Toyota, petitioned a review at the US Supreme Court. The court reversed the Appeals jury decision.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Discussion
I would have agreed with the Appeal’s court final verdict although it was later reversed by the Supreme Court. I find my opinion correct since Williams fully satisfied the ADA requirements owing to the fact that the disability was a substantial limitation that made it difficult to execute routine tasks. The appeals sitting made similar findings to the way I thought it could rule for the same reasons that the condition that Williams contracted amounted to substantial constrain that constrained her ability to carry out activities such as product handling jobs such as painting, roofing, plumbing etc. Notably, this was a weighty limitation in a major life activity.
Reference
Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams , 534 U.S. 184, 122 S. Ct. 681, 151 L. Ed. 2d 615 (2002).
