Defendant, Williams, began working at the Toyota Motor Manufacturing plant in Georgetown Kentucky in August 1990. She was placed on the engine manufacturing assembly line, where her Tasks consisted of working with pneumatic tools on the production line. He began experiencing pain in his hands, wrists and arms, which was contributed to by working with pneumatic tools. She sought treatment at Toyota's internal medical service and was diagnosed with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and bilateral tendonitis. Her personal physician placed permanent work restrictions on her that prohibited her from frequently lifting or carrying objects weighing up to ten pounds. Over the next two years Williams was assigned to various adapted work duties. He occasionally missed work on medical leave and eventually sought compensation under the Workers' Compensation Act in Kentucky. Both parties, Williams and Toyota, managed to resolve the dispute and the respondent returned to work. After returning to work, Williams was still unhappy with Toyota Motor Manufacturing's arrangement for her and filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. He alleged that the petitioner violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Her request stated that the petitioner had refused to accommodate her disability. Once again the dispute between Toyota Motor Manufacturing and Williams was resolved and Williams returned to work in December 1993. It was placed into Quality Control Inspection Operations (QCIO). QCIO members were responsible for four tasks: assembly paint, second paint inspection, body inspection, and ED surface repair. Initially Williams was only responsible for assembling paint and paper color for the company and let it go simply because it lost too much work. I don't think they were discriminating. As for the Court, I believe some sympathy was directed towards Williams. He was clearly not substantially disabled, but they agreed that his injuries had some effect on his personal lifestyle. The court did what it thought was the right thing to do. In conclusion, the outcome regarding an individual's disability should be decided separately for each individual case. Williams says her inability to perform manual tasks prevents her from surviving. The Court of Appeal's opinion that her major life activities were not impeded supports the conclusion that her limitations did not prevent her from performing key tasks that most people perform. Williams' limitations only prevented her from performing the tasks associated with her specific job.