 |
|
MRSC has joined with Janice Corbin and Janet May, Partners, Sound Employment Solutions, Rhonda Hilyer, President, Agreement Dynamics,and Bruce Schroeder, Employment/Litigation Attorney, Summit Law Group, to bring you the "HR Advisor" article series on employment and labor law issues affecting Washington local governments. The "HR Advisor" will feature a new article each month with timely HR management information and advice you can use.*
Surprise Decision: Washington Supreme Court Narrows Definition of Disability Under State Law
August 2006
John Chun
Employment/Litigation Attorney
Summit Law Group, PLLC
In the recent case of McClarty v. Totem Electric, the Washington State Supreme Court limited the definition of “disability” under Washington law by adopting the federal definition for that term. This important decision, which is favorable to employers, has significant ramifications.
Background
Prior to the McClarty case, the definition of “disability” under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) was considered to be broader than the definition of the term under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). For example, it was understood that certain temporary or relatively minor health conditions not covered by the ADA would be covered by the WLAD. Employers kept in mind this difference between state and federal law in analyzing questions of discriminatory treatment and reasonable accommodation with respect to disabilities.
McClarty v. Totem Electric
Ken McClarty was an electrician for Totem Electric. He had various job duties, including the use of a jackhammer and shovel to level trenches. After a few weeks of such work, he told his employer that his hands were hurting from the digging. A physician diagnosed McClarty with carpal tunnel syndrome and specified work restrictions for a six month period. McClarty advised his employer regarding the diagnosis. On the same day, Totem Electric gave him a written termination notice.
McClarty sued Totem Electric, claiming disability discrimination. The trial court granted Totem Electric’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the disability claim.
The Washington Supreme Court addressed the following issue: in disability discrimination cases under the WLAD, what is the appropriate definition of “disability”?
In a 5-4 ruling, the Court held as follows:
To provide for a single definition of “disability” that can be applied consistently throughout the WLAD, we adopt the definition of disability as set forth in the [ADA]. We hold that a plaintiff bringing suit under the WLAD establishes that he has a disability if he has (1) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of his major life activities, (2) a record of such an impairment, or (3) is regarded as having such an impairment.
The Court noted with approval United States Supreme Court’s holding that being “substantially limited” under this definition means that the employee is “unable to perform a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform;” and that “major life activities” are “those activities that are of central importance to daily life.” The Court remanded the case back to the trial court to apply this definition to McClarty’s discrimination claim.
What the Case Means for You
By narrowing the definition of “disability,” this decision is favorable for employers. Not only does it reduce the scope of potential disability claims, it provides more certainty and consistency with respect to the analysis regarding what constitutes a disability. In analyzing whether there is a “disability” under the WLAD, employers may now look to the body of cases that interpret the federal ADA definition.
As always, however, employers should be cautious in reviewing disability matters. It should be noted that, with respect to the alignment of state and federal law, McClarty is limited to the question of the definition of “disability.” The case does not stand for the proposition that federal disability law replaces all prior state disability law standards and protections.
Also, the law can change again. The McClarty decision was rendered by a 5-4 Court. Given the deep division on our state’s highest bench, a contrary decision by the Court in the future would not be completely surprising. Likewise, advocacy groups may lobby to for a definition of “disability” that is broader than the federal definition.
Finally, McClarty concerns only Washington law. If another state’s laws apply to a particular employment relationship, then the definition of “disability” under that state’s laws must be reviewed.
| Bruce Schroeder is an employment / litigation attorney with Summit Law Group, Seattle. Bruce's practice is concentrated on representing management in the entire range of employment law matters. More . |  |
|
Janice Corbin is a partner with
Sound Employment Solutions, LLC, Seattle. Janice has over 15 years of
human resources experience with the Seattle Police Department and the
International Harvester Truck Company and has worked in the law enforcement
field for over 22 years.
More.
Janet May is a partner and attorney with Sound Employment Solutions, LLC, Seattle. Janet has over ten years of experience in the labor and employment law field, and has represented both management and labor. More. |
 |
| Rhonda Hilyer, President and Founder of Agreement Dynamics, is an international consultant with a reputation for helping convert traditional, conflict-based environments into productive, collaborative ones. More. |  |
*The Articles appearing in the "HR Advisor" column represent the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Municipal Research & Services Center.