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.
