Maine Court Redefines Disability Some say change in meaning sets dangerous precedent for the Disabled
Handing down a decision that threatens to rock the legal definition of disability, the Maine State Supreme Court ruled in early April that a discrimination claim based on a physical or mental impairment does not require the complainant to show a substantial limitation on a major life activity.
The decision invalidates a Maine Human Rights Commission regulation that uses the definition, requiring the proof of substantial limitation in a major life activity.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was signed into law in 1990 and offers a functional definition of disability, without listing specific disabilities. The ADA defines disability as “(A) A physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual; (B) a record of such an impairment; or (C) being regarded as having such an impairment.”
Consequently, the state court’s ruling determined an inconsistency in language between the state’s definition of disability and the definition found in the federal statute. Disability rights supporters believe that the definition found in the federal statute has obstructed the filing of numerous valid claims.
"This changes the landscape. It's a pretty earth-shaking decision," said David Webbert, the Augusta lawyer who represented the Maine AFL-CIO in the case. "The federal law had been so gutted that the state law is incredibly important in giving people with disabilities in Maine a chance for justice."
Opponents of the federal definition of disability claim the legal meaning of the term creates a loophole that many have already taken advantage of since the landmark civil rights act become a law to protect the rights of Americans with disabilities. Such “bogus” lawsuits have, in turn, made it difficult for legitimate claims to receive justice, says disability rights activist Kris Jones.
For once, there is some level of agreement between some members of the disability community and business owners.
“I’ve even heard of a claim filed by a ‘clinically-depressed’ man who said he’d been discriminated against because his boss wouldn’t let him urinate in a private restroom,” said Jones. “Claims like these tie up the courts and push real discrimination issues, access issues, out into the cold.”
Despite being claimed as a victory for the disability rights movement by organized labor and others in the disability community, activists like Jones believe the Maine State Supreme Court ruling will exacerbate the judicial handling of future ADA cases. This manipulation of the definition eliminates the much-needed confirmation of a valid disability, says Jones.
Currently, U.S. Census Bureau records indicate that 20 percent of the country’s population lives with a disability. Those in the disability community believe this number is considerably lower than the actual number of Americans living with a disability, claiming that due to the stigma associated with being disabled, many do not want to admit having a disability, even on a confidential form like the Census.
Yet even at 20 percent of the country’s population, the Disabled are still the nation’s largest minority, which constitutes a political force demanding recognition.
