▁El la ▁Williams , ▁that ▁qualified ▁her ▁in ability ▁to ▁perform ▁manual ▁job - related ▁tasks ▁as ▁a ▁dis ability . ▁The ▁Court ▁held ▁that ▁the ▁" major ▁life ▁activity " ▁definition ▁in ▁evalu ating ▁the ▁performance ▁of ▁manual ▁tasks ▁focus es ▁the ▁inqu iry ▁on ▁whether ▁Williams ▁was ▁unable ▁to ▁perform ▁a ▁range ▁of ▁tasks ▁central ▁to ▁most ▁people ▁in ▁carrying ▁out ▁the ▁activities ▁of ▁daily ▁living . ▁The ▁issue ▁is ▁not ▁whether ▁Williams ▁was ▁unable ▁to ▁perform ▁her ▁specific ▁job ▁tasks . ▁Therefore , ▁the ▁determ ination ▁of ▁whether ▁an ▁imp air ment ▁r ises ▁to ▁the ▁level ▁of ▁a ▁dis ability ▁is ▁not ▁limited ▁to ▁activities ▁in ▁the ▁work place ▁sole ly , ▁but ▁rather ▁to ▁manual ▁tasks ▁in ▁life ▁in ▁general . ▁When ▁the ▁Supreme ▁Court ▁applied ▁this ▁standard , ▁it ▁found ▁that ▁the ▁Court ▁of ▁App e als ▁had ▁incorrectly ▁determined ▁the ▁presence ▁of ▁a ▁dis ability ▁because ▁it ▁re lied ▁sole ly ▁on ▁her ▁in ability ▁to ▁perform ▁specific ▁manual ▁work ▁tasks , ▁which ▁was ▁ins u fficient ▁in ▁prov ing ▁the ▁presence ▁of ▁a ▁dis ability . ▁The ▁Court ▁of ▁App e als ▁should ▁have ▁taken ▁into ▁account ▁the ▁evidence ▁presented ▁that ▁Williams ▁retained ▁the ▁ability ▁to ▁do ▁personal ▁tasks ▁and ▁household ▁ch ores , ▁such ▁activities ▁being ▁the ▁nature ▁of ▁tasks ▁most ▁people ▁do ▁in ▁their ▁daily ▁lives , ▁and ▁placed ▁too ▁much ▁emphas is ▁on ▁her ▁job ▁dis ability . ▁Since ▁the ▁evidence ▁showed ▁that ▁Williams ▁was ▁performing ▁normal ▁daily ▁tasks , ▁it ▁ruled