Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. Williams

United States Supreme Court
534 U.S. 184 (2002)


Facts

In 1990, Williams (plaintiff) began working for Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. (Toyota) (defendant) in an automobile-manufacturing plant. Williams worked on an assembly line, performing manual tasks using her arms and hands. Williams began experiencing pain in her wrists, hands, and arms. A medical professional diagnosed Williams with carpal tunnel syndrome and imposed certain work restrictions preventing her from repetitive lifting of heavy weights. Toyota reassigned Williams to a quality-control team. For two years, Williams capably performed the assigned job duties. In 1996, Toyota began rotating quality-control employees to various teams. This required Williams to perform new tasks that once again caused her neck and shoulder pain at work, although it did not affect her ability to do routine chores at home. Williams asked Toyota to accommodate her medical condition by permitting her to perform only quality-control job duties. According to Williams, Toyota denied the request. Toyota claimed Williams began missing work on a frequent, unexcused basis. Williams was terminated for poor attendance in 1997. Williams sued Toyota, alleging disability discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. The district court held that Williams’s condition was not a disability under the ADA, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. Toyota petitioned for review by the United States Supreme Court.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (O’Connor, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 220,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.