Opinion ID: 1232368
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: West Virginia Human Rights Act

Text: Mr. St. Peter maintains that the circuit court erred in dismissing his claims under the West Virginia Human Rights Act, W.Va. Code, 5-11-1 [1967] et seq. because a perceived handicap is a handicap under W.Va.Code, 5-11-3(m) [1994]. AMPAK argues that under Ranger Fuel Corp. v. W. Va. Human Rights Comm'n, 180 W.Va. 260, 376 S.E.2d 154 (1988), the definition of handicap must be strictly construed and Mr. St. Peter did not suffer an injury of the severity to be characterized as a handicap. However, Mr. St. Peter appeals the circuit court's holding that discrimination based on the perception of a handicap is not prohibited. Mr. St. Peter emphasizes that on the first day he returned to work after his compensable injury, Mr. Gateman told him that half a man was not needed in his organization. The term handicap is defined in W.Va. Code 5-11-3(m) [1994], which states: The term handicap means a person who: (1) Has a mental or physical impairment which substantially limits one or more of such person's major life activities; the term major life activities includes functions such as caring for one's self, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning and working; (2) Has a record of such impairment; or (3) Is regarded as having such an impairment. For the purposes of this article, this term does not include persons whose current use of or addiction to alcohol or drugs prevents such individual from performing the duties of the job in question or whose employment, by reason of such current alcohol or drug abuse, would constitute a direct threat to property or the safety of others. (emphasis added). We note that the Legislature amended the definition of handicap in 1989 to include one who [i]s regarded as having such an impairment. However, several cases arose under the 1987 version of W.Va.Code, 5-11-3, which did not include within the definition of handicap the perception of a handicap. See Chico Dairy Co. v. W.Va. Human Rights Comm'n, 181 W.Va. 238, 382 S.E.2d 75 (1989) opinion as modified on denial of rehearing; Ranger Fuel, supra ; Fourco Glass Co. v. W.Va. Human Rights Comm'n, 181 W.Va. 432, 383 S.E.2d 64 (1989) (per curiam) . In Chico Dairy, 181 W.Va. at 248 n. 10, 382 S.E.2d at 85 n. 10, we noted the 1989 amendment to the statutory definition of handicap and said that [a]n amendment is meant to change the law. (citations omitted). Because the present case concerns acts that occurred in 1993, the 1989 amendment was in effect, and therefore, discrimination based the perception of a handicap was prohibited. Based on the clear and unambiguous language of W.Va.Code 5-11-3(m) [1994], we find that the circuit court erred in dismissing Mr. St. Peter's perception of handicap discrimination claim.