The Maine Human Rights Commission (MHRC) has postponed taking action on controversial proposed changes to its regulations regarding what constitutes a "disability" under the Maine Human Rights Act. 
At issue are the differences in the statutory definitions of disability found in the Maine Human Rights Act and its federal counterpart, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).  On its face, the Maine Human Rights Act defines disability more broadly than does the federal Act. The Maine statute was enacted in 1975, while the ADA was enacted in 1990.  In between those enactments, however, the MHRC promulgated a regulatory definition of "disability" in 1985, and that definition tracked the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973.  The Rehabilitation Act's regulatory language was in many ways the source of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and later became part of the federal statutory framework under the ADA.

At issue is the Maine regulation and the federal ADA statute which require that an impairment, in order to be covered as a disability, must be one that “substantially limits one or more . . . major life activities.”  That very language has often been cited by federal courts in narrowly interpreting the scope of the ADA and dismissing many claims brought by employees with varying kinds and degrees of medical conditions.

Business groups submitted comments on the proposed changes, stressing that if the regulations are changed and eliminate the requirement that the condition constitute one that substantially limits a major life activity, employers in Maine will undoubtedly be facing more disability cases filed with the Commission and in the courts.  Indeed, the proposed revised regulation appeared to include serious impairments of any duration.  When the MHRC took up these proposed changes at its June meeting, the Commissioners themselves expressed concerns, particularly regarding the need to clarify that the statutory definition should refer to serious conditions of more than temporary duration.  As a result, the Commissioners decided to postpone any change in the regulations to the definition of “disability.”  The Commission, however, has indicated its intent to issue a revised clarification to the definition, and to start a new public hearing process, which should occur early in the fall of 2003.

The proposed changes to the regulations are being pressed for and advocated by the Maine Employment Lawyers Association, an organization of attorneys who represent plaintiffs in employment discrimination matters. The Commission staff also appears to be urging the Commissioners to expand the scope of protections under the State regulations.  Business and employer groups will obviously need to monitor very closely these proposed regulations in the coming months.