Fedweek Legal

The key initial inquiry in determining coverage under the Rehabilitation Act is whether the impairment substantially limits a major life activity. The EEOC defines major life activities as “functions, such as caring for one’s self, performing manual tasks, waking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.” 29 CFR 1614.203(a)(3). Major life activities “are those basic activities that the average person in the general population can perform with little or no difficulty.” Some major life activities are: eating, sleeping, walking, learning, thinking, housework, bowel control, sex, reproduction, and breathing.

The U.S. Supreme Court held in Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S 184 (2002), that the employee was not disabled from performing her automobile assembly line job due to carpal tunnel syndrome and related impairments because she was not “substantially limited” in the major life activity of performing manual tasks. The Supreme Court held that the central inquiry is whether Ms. Williams was unable to perform the variety of tasks central to most people’s lives. The court found that occupation-specific tasks may only have a limited relevance to the manual task issue as repetitive work with hands and arms extended at or above shoulder levels for extended periods is not an “important part of most people’s daily lives.”

The court went on to state that household chores, brushing one’s teeth, and bathing are the types of manual tasks that are of “central importance to people’s daily lives.” It ruled that Ms. Williams was not substantially limited in the major life activity of performing manual tasks as she was able to wash her face, bathe, tend to her flower garden, fix breakfast, and do laundry. However, the following are not major life activities: driving to work, shopping, housework beyond basic chores, running, jumping, and strenuous exercise. One court as even held that “keyboarding” is not a major life activity-but that view is likely to change. It does not matter what the impairment is if it does not substantially limit a major life activity. In the absence of impact on a major life activity, the impairment will not constitute a disability. Therefore, it is not sufficient to merely have a medical diagnosis of an impairment. Rather, the employee must prove how it affects him on a daily basis in performing his usual activities. Calef v. Gillette Co., 322 F.3d 75 (1st Cir. 2003).

In applying the major life activity of working, it is not sufficient that an employee is unable to work in his unique position but must be disabled for a “broad range of jobs.” Sutton v. United Airlines, 527 U.S. 471 (1999). A Gloucester, MA involuntarily retired police officer was found not to be disabled due to hypertension and increased risk of a heart attack as he was able to work 24-32 hours as a security guard in Sheehan v. City of Gloucester, 321 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2003). Thus, as a practical matter, it is now generally required that to prove an adverse impact on a major life activity, the employee must also prove that he is adversely affected in his daily life activities. As a result of these Supreme Court decisions, it is now increasingly difficult for an employee to meet the basic requirement of being classified as an individual with a handicap under the Rehabilitation Act.

** This information is provided by the attorneys at

Passman & Kaplan, P.C., a law firm dedicated to the

representation of federal employees worldwide. For more

information on Passman & Kaplan, P.C., go to

http://www.passmanandkaplan.com. **