§12112(b)(5)(A). Upon Toyota's appeal, the District Court issued a summary judgment that the Williams' impairment did not qualify as a "disability" under the ADA because her disability did not "substantially limit" any "major life activity" §12102(2)(A), and that there was no evidence that she possessed  a record of such  disabilities.
This legal case revolves around whether Williams' impairment qualifies as a "disability" under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The court determined that her condition did not meet the ADA's definition of a disability, specifically because it didn't significantly impact major life activities.