Opinion ID: 1927753
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Scope of the Maine Human Rights Act

Text: A-P-A's next argument is that the employees are not handicapped within the meaning of the Maine Human Rights Act. The Act defines physical or mental handicap as any disability, infirmity, malformation, disfigurement, congenital defect or mental condition caused by bodily injury, accident, disease, birth defect, environmental conditions or illness.... 5 M.R.S.A. § 4553(7-A) (1979). Both Rozanski and Berube fit within the express terms of that definition since the asymptomatic condition of each of the men constitutes a malformation of the spine. Their conditions are indistinguishable from that of the railway employee involved in Maine Human Rights Commission v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., 458 A.2d 1225 (Me.1983), who because of his asymptomatic heart murmur was deemed to be handicapped within the meaning of the Act. Similarly, Rozanski's and Berube's latent back conditions, which were the sole ground for their termination, are physical handicaps that entitle them to the protection of the Maine Human Rights Act.