By: Matthew LaMourie

By Matthew J. LaMourie

On April 11, a divided Maine Law Court resolved a closely-watched issue in favor of workers when it ruled that a discrimination claim brought under state law, based on a person’s physical or mental disability, need not require that person show that their condition imposes a “substantial limitation on a major life activity.”  In effect, the Court’s ruling means that the anti-discrimination protections under Maine’s Human Rights Act are available to a far broader group of workers than those available under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA).  The ramifications of the Law Court’s decision in Whitney v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. will be far-reaching for Maine businesses in terms of both their obligations to so-called disabled workers and their exposure to legal action for non-compliance.

As readers of this newsletter know, the issue reached the Maine Law Court after Federal District Judge D. Brock Hornby requested that it interpret an unsettled state law question for his use in a lawsuit pending in U.S. District Court.  In that dispute, Stanley Whitney sued Wal-Mart after he was removed from his salaried management position when he could not satisfy a specific work-hour requirement imposed in connection with a return from leave.  Wal-Mart offered, and Mr. Whitney accepted, another position in a lower-paying managerial capacity at another store, but Mr. Whitney 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.  Wal-Mart contended that Mr. Whitney’s heart condition did not make him a qualifying individual with a disability because he was not “substantially limited in any major life activity.”  

In a 4-3 decision, the Law Court determined that an employee seeking the disability discrimination protections of the Maine Human Rights Act need not show

that his or her condition “substantially limits a major life activity.”  Unlike the more restrictive definition set forth in federal law, the Maine Legislature has defined the term “physical and mental disability” far more broadly, encompassing “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.”   The Whitney decision will almost certainly eliminate the prior legal uncertainties associated with the question of whether employees with chronic back pain, heart disease, carpal tunnel syndrome, clinical depression and other diagnosable ailments, are defined as disabled under state law.

Over the years, navigating the differences between the statutory language and related legal obligations imposed by the ADA and Maine Human Rights Act has been challenging for Maine employers.  While Whitney has conferred one benefit upon employers to the extent it resolved a longstanding uncertainty in the scope of the disability protections provided by state law, there is no doubt that the Court’s decision effectively lowers the qualification threshold for Maine workers seeking to enforce disability discrimination protections.  Moreover, since the Law Court’s decision expressly invalidates Maine Human Rights Commission regulations that contained the phrase “substantially limits one or more of [a] person’s major life activities,” Maine employers now face a total absence of meaningful administrative guidance on how the state law formulation of “disability” should be interpreted. 

Owing to the broader scope of the Maine Act, Whitney will likely result in a higher volume of charges of discrimination brought before the Maine Human Rights Commission, a decrease in the number of disability discrimination claims brought pursuant to federal law here in Maine, and a need for employers to more closely scrutinize their employees’ ability to perform essential functions of their jobs and the extent to which accommodating an employee’s condition is appropriate and legally necessary.  It remains to be seen whether during its next session, the Maine Legislature will respond by amending language in the Maine Human Rights Act, which is unlikely, or if Maine will join a growing list of states – including New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, California and Oregon -- whose disability discrimination protections cover a far broader group of employees.  For the foreseeable future, we recommend that Maine employers exercise greater care in evaluating worker requests for such accommodations as flexible schedules, time off for medical appointments, and modifications in communication, job feedback and/or supervision.