By Foy Meyer III

The Maine Human Rights Act (the “MHRA”) was amended today when Governor John Baldacci signed into law a revamped definition of the term “disability.”  The new definition, which was passed by both houses of the Maine Legislature on May 15, 2007, was the culmination of more than a year of interpretive uncertainty and months of vigorous political debate in the wake of the Maine Law Court’s controversial disability discrimination ruling in Whitney v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.  The new definition is effective immediately.

While the amendment overrides the Maine Human Rights Commission’s sweeping post-Whitney regulations (which stretched the definition of the term “disability” to encompass impairments of virtually every kind), the new definition still affords broader coverage than was available prior to Whitney.  Among other noteworthy changes, employers should pay particular attention to two new aspects of the statute.  First, in addition to the pre-Whitney definition (which followed federal law and remains part of the new definition), the term “disability” now covers any physical or mental impairment that either (a) “requires special education, vocational rehabilitation, or related services” or (b) “significantly impairs physical or mental health,” which means “having an actual or expected duration of more than six months and impairing health to a significant extent as compared to what is ordinarily experienced in the general population.”  Second, the amendment includes a “safe harbor” of nearly thirty specific medical conditions that qualify as per se disabilities under the MHRA.   These per se disabilities, which were individually proposed by lobbyists for employees and the Maine Disability Rights Center, include such conditions as abnormal vision or hearing loss, heart disease, diabetes, and major depressive disorders.    

Although this amendment affords more expansive coverage than the pre-Whitney definition, it is a welcomed result for employers insofar as it returns some modest degree of certainty and predictability to the law that has been missing for more than a year.  Nevertheless, to ensure compliance with the amendment’s new standards, employers should seek the assistance of qualified employment counsel.