[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-324772-105":59,"doc-detail-324772-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","in-the-supreme-court-of-texas-no-03-0498-evelyn-little-v-texas-department-of-criminal-justice-and-gary-johnson-director-opinion-and-legal-analysis","IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS - No. 03-0498 - Evelyn Little v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice and Gary Johnson, Director - Opinion and Legal Analysis","","Unanimous Texas Supreme Court opinion on Evelyn Little’s petition for review regarding whether she had a “disability” under Texas Labor Code chapter 21 at the time of adverse employment actions. The Court evaluates summary-judgment evidence concerning her amputated left leg, prosthesis use, and noticeable limp. It analyzes the statutory definitions of “disability,” the historical evolution from “handicap” under the Commission on Human Rights Act, and related legislative and precedent interpretations.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/in-the-supreme-court-of-texas-no-03-0498-evelyn-little-v-texas-department-of-criminal-justice-and-gary-johnson-director-opinion-and-legal-analysis/324772/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/in-the-supreme-court-of-texas-no-03-0498-evelyn-little-v-texas-department-of-criminal-justice-and-gary-johnson-director-opinion-and-legal-analysis/324772.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Eden","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-30","2026-09-21",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":39},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"What legal issue did the Texas Supreme Court decide in this case?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"Whether Evelyn Little produced legally sufficient evidence that, at the time of the alleged adverse employment actions, she had a “disability” under the Texas Labor Code.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"How did the Court treat the summary-judgment evidence?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"The opinion focuses on whether there was probative summary-judgment evidence showing that Little’s impairment substantially limited at least one major life activity.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What historical change from “handicap” to “disability” is discussed?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"The document explains that the Legislature replaced “handicap” with “disability” throughout the CHRA, adopting federal statutory language and lowering the threshold for what qualifies as a disability.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},324772,1790189302,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":39,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145,"preview_page_count":4},1374391974468,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_29158cc5080c5b710cf443261637dec0","IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS  \n444444444444  \nNO. 03-0498  \n444444444444  \nEVELYN LITTLE, PETITIONER,  \nv.  \nTEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND GARY JOHNSON, DIRECTOR,  \nRESPONDENTS  \n4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444  \nON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE  \nCOURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS  \n4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444  \nArgued on September 8, 2004  \nJUSTICE SMITH delivered the unanimous opinion of the Court.  \nSection 21.051 of the Labor Code provides that “[a]n employer commits an unlawful employment practice if because of race, color, disability, religion, sex, national origin, or age the employer: (1) fails or refuses to hire an individual . . . .” TEX. LAB. CODE § 21.051 (emphasis added) . For purposes of chapter 21 of the Labor Code, the term “disability”means “with respect to an individual, a mental or physical impairment that substantially limits at least one major life activity of that individual, a record of such an impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment. . . .” Id. § 21.002(6) (emphasis added) .  \nThe question in this case is whether the plaintiff-petitioner, whose left leg has been amputated at the knee, produced legally sufficient evidence that, at the time of the adverse  \nemployment actions of which she complains, she had a “disability.” More specifically, the question is whether there is any probative summary judgment evidence that Evelyn Little, who wears a prosthesis on her left leg and walks with a noticeable limp, had at that time a “physical impairment that substantially limit[ed] at least one major life activity.”  \nThe trial court granted the defendants’motion for summary judgment. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding that Little had “failed to make a threshold showing that she has a disability.”   S.W.3d   ,   . We will reverse and remand to the court of appeals.  \nI  \nIn 1983, the Legislature enacted the Commission on Human Rights Act (CHRA) . See CHRA, 68th Leg., 1st C.S., ch. 7, 1983 Tex. Gen. Laws 37 (compiled as TEX. REV. CIV. STAT. ANN. art. 5221k) . The CHRA created the Commission on Human Rights and designated it the state agency responsible for administering the statute. Id. §§ 3.01(a), 3.02.  \nUnder the CHRA, as enacted, employers and other covered entities were generally prohibited from discriminating against an individual “because of race, color, handicap, religion, sex, national origin, or age” with respect to hiring and other employment actions. Id. §§ 5.01-5.03. The CHRA, as enacted, provided:  \n“Handicap” means a condition either mental or physical that includes mental retardation, hardness of hearing, deafness, speech impairment, visual handicap, being crippled, or any other health impairment that requires special ambulatory devices or services, as defined in Section 121.002(4), Human Resources Code, but does not include a condition of addiction to any drug or illegal or federally controlled substances or a condition of addiction to the use of alcohol.  \nId. § 2.01(7)(B) .  \nIn 1987, in Chevron Corp. v. Redmon, 745 S.W.2d 314 (Tex. 1987), this Court construed the term “handicap.” Redmon, after being denied employment as a maintenance helper, sought relief under the CHRA. The vision in one of her eyes could not be corrected to better than 20/60, and it was undisputed that she was not hired because of her vision. Id. at 315. The Court determined asa matter of law that she was not “handicapped,” concluding that “Redmon’s minor visual problems do not constitute those severe barriers to employment or other life functions which necessitate protection by the State.” Id. at 318. With regard to legislative intent, the Court stated: “[T]he legislature obviously chose not to employ the definition of ‘handicap’ in the federal Rehabilitation Act, 29 U. S.C. § 701-796i.” Id.  \nIn 1988, the Sunset Advisory Commission issued a report that, inter alia, recommended that“[t]he definition of handicap in the Texas Commis","cbCaisDcjJ8AVzes","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaisDcjJ8AVzes","pdf",140660,17,"English","# Case Background\n## Petition for Review and Procedural History\n# Statutory Framework\n## Texas Labor Code: Unlawful Employment Practice\n## Definition of “Disability”\n# Legislative and Precedent History\n## Commission on Human Rights Act (“Handicap”)\n## 1987 Chevron Corp. v. Redmon\n## 1989 CHRA Amendments to “Disability”\n# Issue for Review\n## Sufficiency of Summary-Judgment Evidence","[{\"question\":\"What legal issue did the Texas Supreme Court decide in this case?\",\"answer\":\"Whether Evelyn Little produced legally sufficient evidence that, at the time of the alleged adverse employment actions, she had a “disability” under the Texas Labor Code.\"},{\"question\":\"How did the Court treat the summary-judgment evidence?\",\"answer\":\"The opinion focuses on whether there was probative summary-judgment evidence showing that Little’s impairment substantially limited at least one major life activity.\"},{\"question\":\"What historical change from “handicap” to “disability” is discussed?\",\"answer\":\"The document explains that the Legislature replaced “handicap” with “disability” throughout the CHRA, adopting federal statutory language and lowering the threshold for what qualifies as a disability.\"}]","IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS - No. 03-0498 - Evelyn Little v. Texas Department of Criminal Justice and Gary Johnson, Director - Opinion and Legal Analysis | PDF",1789968827,43]