 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
Caution: ‘Disability’s’ Connotations Differ Under ADA and Workers’ Comp |
||||
|
Many employers and insurers anxiously awaited the January 2002 United States Supreme Court decision in Toyota Motor v. Williams. At issue was whether an employee's impairment required the employer to make a "reasonable accommodation" under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The case heard by the Supreme Court involved Ella Williams, a former employee at the Toyota Manufacturing Plant in Georgetown, Kentucky. While working on an assembly line, Ms. Williams developed repetitive motion disorders in both arms and hands, including carpal tunnel syndrome. Toyota transferred her to a different, less demanding job. After approximately three years Toyota expanded Williams’ job duties. The disorders returned and Williams requested further accommodations. Ms. Williams claimed that Toyota refused her request. According to Toyota, Ms. Williams was eventually terminated from her job for poor attendance. Ms. Williams filed suit, alleging Toyota's actions violated the ADA. A lower court dismissed the case, but an appeals court ruled in favor of Williams, citing her inability to hold her hands above her shoulder disqualified her from a “class” of similar jobs. The Supreme Court disagreed. An opinion authored by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor held that for plaintiffs to prove that they are disabled in the major life activity of manual tasks, they must show that the manual tasks have central importance to their daily lives. The “central inquiry,” O’Connor stated, “must be whether the claimant is unable to perform the variety of tasks central to most people’s daily lives, not whether the claimant is unable to perform the tasks associated with her specific job.” This ruling refined the definition of an impairment that must be permanent and must substantially limit the performance of major activates important to daily life, such as brushing one’s teeth or doing one’s laundry. Therefore, Ms. Williams did not prove that she is disabled by showing only that she cannot perform the specific tasks associated with her job as an assembly line worker. How does this landmark decision affect workers’ compensation and human resources professionals? Here is an excerpt from an article written for policyholders in Utah by Barbara W. Sharp, an attorney for WCF in Utah who also has additional law school training in ADA programs.
We each need to know our state's workers’ compensation laws regarding permanent total disability and emphasize return-to-work programs whether as the carrier managing the claim or human resources benefit issues. Here is a list of options we need to address when an employee is ready to return to work from a workers compensation/FMLA leave or an employee personal illness FMLA leave. The courts look favorable on employers and carriers who focus on returning employees back to work.
It is especially important for managers to not assume a disability exists. Your human resources professionals must examine each case based on the medical certification received from the employee and his or her physician. You may be able to make a short-term accommodation to get the employee back to work as long as you state it in writing and have an end date. It is also necessary to understand the definition of "disability" and the criteria in your short and/or long-term disability plan. Utilizing cost-effective methods can reduce your medical benefit costs. While this is a landmark decision for the United States, it may not be for our Canadian counterparts, according to our human resources colleague, Kim Collins-Riffel, WCB, NT. Canadian bureaus should check with their legal counsel regarding this type of situation. Download complete newsletter in PDF format
|
|||||
|
|
Home | About Us | Directory | News & Events | Library | Contact Us | Member Sign-in |
By
Mary Beard, Kentucky and Nina T. Brollier, Utah 
