As a result of the American’s With Disabilities Act (ADA) and related laws adopted by the States and many counties, the Courts are frequently called upon to decide cases involving claims of discrimination as the alleged result of a disability. Such cases involve balancing the rights of individuals with those of the public at large as well as businesses to operate in a reasonably efficient manner. This is illustrated most recently in Maryland by a case from the State’s intermediate appellate court, Shangri La Ltd. V. Meade.
According to the Court’s opinion, Ms. Meade had developed an allergy to latex, used in such products as latex gloves used for hygienic purposes. Her symptoms when she was exposed included some difficulty breathing. Latex gloves that have powder seemed to make her symptoms worse, since there can be secondary exposure from breathing in or coming into contact with the powder.
Ms. Meade her son in a nursery school owned by the Defendant for three years, without complaint. When she later enrolled another young son, she noticed that the teachers would us powdered latex gloves when changing he children’s diapers. She asked the school not to use the powdered gloves but ones that were not powdered. The school did not want to change completely, but instructed the staff not to use powdered gloves in changing her son, and to allow her to pick her son up at the front desk to avoid exposure.
Ms. Meade limited her activities at the school to avoid exposure, but eventually met with school officials and threatened to sue if they did not stop using powdered gloves. The school then asked her to withdraw her child from the school. She then filed a complaint with the Howard County Office of Human Rights. The County Code made it unlawful for the owner or operator of a public accommodation to discriminate on the basis of a person’s handicap. That Office found that there was a reasonable basis to find that discrimination had occurred.
She then sued the school, and the Judge allowed the jury to decide the case. If found that discrimination had occurred, and awarded damages refunding tuition, for pain and suffering damages and attorneys fees as allowed in such cases. The school appealed, arguing that as a matter of law the judge should have found that there was no discrimination. It argued that under the law, there is only discrimination if a physical impairment substantially affects a major life activity, which had not been proven.
The Court of Special Appeals agreed with the school, and reversed the trial court. It noted that the definition of handicap under the Howard County County and of “disability” under the ADA were nearly identical, and looked to federal law to decide the case. It noted that to prove such a claim, a claimant had to prove 1)that there was an impairment to health, 2) that one or more major life activities was affected, and 3)that there was a substantial impairment of one or more major life activities. A substantial impairment means to a considerable or large degree.
The Court said, after citing a couple of cases from other jurisdictions on latex, that while there was an impairment and breathing is a major life activity, there was insufficient proof of a substantial impairment. It noted that on the rare occasions the plaintiff was exposed to latex, she would only have to use an inhaler. It therefore would not find a violation of the law on these facts. This illustrates the type of analysis courts are called on to do in such cases.