Topic: Americans with Disabilities Act - Toyota v. Williams
Senator: Feingold
Date: SEPTEMBER 15, 2005
Contents
FEINGOLD: Judge, you argued an important case before the Supreme Court concerning who's protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act. It was called Toyota v. Williams.
Ms. Williams suffered from hand, wrist and arm pain while working in an engine assembly line. She was diagnosed with carpal tunnel syndrome and her physician placed her on a permanent work restriction. Her pain continued and she did not think that her employer was addressing her physician-ordered work restrictions appropriately so she sued under the ADA.
You represented Toyota in the case before the Supreme Court. And this was a case of statutory interpretation, so I assume you're quite familiar with the legislative history of that act.
Do you agree with the statement of one of the justice's during oral argument that the act was primarily intended to protect people who are, quote, "wheelchair-bound," unquote?
ROBERTS: The act contains a definition of disability, and that's what the issue was about. And that definition does not contain that type of restriction.
So I don't want to comment on issues that might come before me but the case was about the definition. The definition was not restricted in that way.
The only point I would make, and I'm sure you appreciate this, is that a lot of times the statements during oral argument are certainly not expressions of either the justices' view. They're often playing a Devil's advocate.
And I don't even remember that question. I don't know if it was directed at me or the other counsel, but it may well have been intended to elicit a response to flesh out more fully what the definition was.
FEINGOLD: More generally, do you believe that the ADA or any other civil rights statute should be interpreted narrowly or broadly when it comes to the issue of who it protects?
ROBERTS: Well, I have to say I think it should be interpreted consistent with Congress' intent. And you look at a lot of different factors in trying to flesh that out.
If you folks here in Congress had a particular, in any statute, a narrow focus, then to give that focus a broader impact I think would be wrong.
If you had a broad focus, as, of course, you often do when you're dealing with statutes designed to address discrimination, giving that interpretation a narrow focus would be wrong.
ROBERTS: The effort in every case is to try to give it the right focus and that's the focus that you intended when you passed the law.
FEINGOLD: Thank you, Judge.
And I appreciate all your answers.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my time.
ROBERTS: Thank you, Senator.
SPECTER: Thank you very much, Senator Feingold.
Contents
Prev
Next
Last
