By Matthew J. LaMourie

An important unresolved issue for Maine employers ought to be clarified in the next few months as the result of a request by U.S. District Judge D. Brock Hornby to his counterparts on Maine’s highest court that they interpret the term “physical or mental disability” as it applies to discrimination claims brought under the Maine Human Rights Act.  His request comes in the context of a pending lawsuit brought by an employee of Wal-Mart in a matter known as Whitney v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

While working for Wal-Mart, Stanley Whitney experienced high blood pressure and symptoms of heart disease in 2001.  Mr. Stanley took a period of medical leave related to these conditions.  His salaried position was taken away from him when he could not satisfy a specific work-hour requirement imposed in connection with his return, but Wal-Mart offered, and he accepted, another position in a lower-paying managerial capacity at another store.   Mr. Stanley subsequently sued on grounds of disability and age discrimination under the Maine Human Rights Act – not federal law – alleging that Wal-Mart refused a request for accommodation in connection with the work-hour requirement they imposed following his leave.  Mr. Whitney alleges that Wal-Mart’s refusal to let him remain in his salaried position was driven by his heart condition.  Moreover, he claims that Wal-Mart’s failure to allow him to fill alternative positions he wanted was also driven by his physical impairment. 

In response, Wal-Mart contends that Mr. Whitney’s heart condition does not make him a qualifying individual with a disability under the Act because he is not substantially limited in any major life activity.  Its decisionmakers acknowledge that they never considered their discussions as focusing on requests for reasonable accommodation since they never considered him to be a disabled individual as defined by the Act.

As vigilant employers know, the Maine Human Rights Commission interprets the definition of “physical and mental disability,” as a matter of state law, more broadly than the comparable statutory definition provided in Title I of the Americans With Disabilities Act.   The Maine Legislature has defined the term “physical and mental disability” as meaning “any disability, infirmity, malformation, disfigurement, congenital defect or mental condition caused by bodily injury, accident, disease, birth defect, environmental conditions or illness, and includes the physical or mental condition of a person that constitutes a substantial disability as determined by a physician or, in the case of mental disability, by a psychiatrist or psychologist, as well as any other health or sensory impairment that requires special education, vocational rehabilitation or related services.”  Obviously, the Maine Human Rights Act does not limit the term “disability” to include only those physical or mental impairments that “substantially limit ... major life activities.”  At the same time, however, the Commission’s own administrative regulations, adopted in 1992, offer a definition that tracks language found in the ADA.  Historically, this has posed a dilemma in that the distinction has never been unequivocally addressed by the Maine Law Court, and thus, employers have been left to make educated guesses as to whether certain employees could claim the benefit of certain statutory protections available only to individuals meeting the applicable legal standard. 

Mr. Whitney argues that the Commission’s broader interpretation be applied in the context of his state law claim, while Wal-Mart contends that the proper interpretation of the Act requires that its definitional language be construed consistently with similar federal language found in the ADA.  The ADA provides legal protection only to persons who are able to demonstrate that they have a “physical or mental impairment” that imposes a “substantial limitation in a major life activity.” 

Because resolving this issue involves the interpretation of a state statute, and possibly evaluating the intent of the Maine Legislature in enacting the relevant language, Judge Hornby has requested guidance from his counterparts on the Maine Law Court.  Their determination means everything in the context of the pending lawsuit, since Judge Hornby has indicated that he will grant summary judgment in Wal-Mart’s favor should the Law Court agree with its more narrow interpretation.