Opinion ID: 1710293
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Claimed Instructional Error

Text: The question whether to consider a person's unmitigated condition in determining handicapped status under the 1990 HCRA definition of handicap is one of first impression. Because the HCRA definition mirrors that of the ADA, we examine federal law for guidance. [11] While the ADA itself, like the HCRA, does not specifically address the issue of mitigating measures, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the federal agency charged with administering the act in the employment context, has determined that an individual's status should be determined not as it presently exists, but as it would exist without regard to medication or other mitigating measures. The interpretive guidelines state: The existence of an impairment is to be determined without regard to mitigating measures such as medicines, or assistive or prosthetic devices. See Senate Report at 23, House Labor Report at 52, House Judiciary Report at 28. For example, an individual with epilepsy would be considered to have an impairment even if the symptoms of the disorder were completely controlled by medicine. Similarly, an individual with a hearing loss would be considered to have an impairment even if the condition were correctable through the use of a hearing aid. [29 CFR 1630 App 1630.2(h) ].[ [12] ] Despite this interpretive guidance, and the general rule that federal courts accord deference to agency interpretation of the act that the agency is charged to administer, [13] many federal courts that have considered the issue have rejected the EEOC's guidelines. Federal courts are split on whether the ADA requires consideration of the individual's present status, or whether the EEOC guidelines should be followed and consideration be given to the individual's condition as it would hypothetically exist without the aid of mitigating measures. [14] We find the reasoning of those federal courts that have rejected the EEOC guidelines to be persuasive and that this reasoning applies to our interpretation of the HCRA. We will turn next to a review of the arguments presented by these courts. First, and most important, the approach taken in the EEOC guidelines contravenes the plain language of the ADA, and also of the HCRA. The ADA and HCRA definitions require an individual to have a condition that substantially limits a major life activity. In contrast, the administrative gloss imposed on this plain language by the guidelines provides that an individual who would have a substantial limitation if he failed to take his medication or discontinued using other mitigating measures comes within the definition. [15] In other words, the EEOC approach, which is the approach that the plaintiff would have this Court adopt, would require us to read out of the statute the requirement that the individual's condition substantially limits a major life activity. As this Court has stated on numerous occasions, where a statute is clear and unambiguous on its face, we will follow the clear language as written without engaging in judicial construction. Tryc v. Michigan Veterans' Facility, 451 Mich. 129, 135-136, 545 N.W.2d 642 (1996). Many federal courts have also taken this view. As explained by the court in Coghlan v. HJ Heinz Co., 851 F.Supp. 808, 813 (N.D.Tex., 1994), a case involving an individual with controlled diabetes mellitus: Defendant's argument appears to run like this: In order to have a disability under the ADA, one must have a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activity [sic]. Yet the EEOC's interpretative guidance states that a diabetic who without insulin would lapse into a coma would be substantially limited because the individual cannot perform major life activities without the aid of medication. This gloss reads limits right out of the statute because an insulin-dependent diabetic who takes insulin could perform major life activities and would therefore not be limited. Because the EEOC gloss requires determination of disability regardless of an insulin-dependent diabetic's limitation, it is at odds with the statute. In other words, the EEOC interpretation requires that one not having a limitation be considered as having a disability even though the statutory language clearly requires substantial limitation. [ Coghlan at 813.] This rationale is equally applicable to plaintiff's handicap claim. We must examine the plaintiff's condition as it exists, with the benefit of his antirejection medication. Because he has no limitations of any major life activities, he does not have a handicap. A recent decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is also instructive. In that case, Gilday v. Mecosta Co., 124 F.3d 760 (C.A.6, 1997), involving a noninsulin dependant diabetic, a majority of the court, consisting of Judges Kennedy and Guy, [16] determined that the ADA required assessing the individual's condition as it presently existed with his oral medications and his diet and exercise regimen. [17] As Judge Kennedy explained: In my opinion, the EEOC's rule on mitigating circumstances conflicts with the text of the ADA and is, therefore, not a permissible construction of the statute. Id. To be disabled under 42 U.S.C. 12102(2)(A), an individual must prove (1) that he has an impairment, and (2) that this impairment substantially limits a major life activity. The EEOC's rule is at odds with this second requirement. Under the EEOC's Interpretive Guidance, an individual is considered disabled even if, with the benefit of medication, the individual is not, in fact, substantially limited in any major life activity. The EEOC's rule, in effect, eliminates the statutory requirement that an impairment substantially limit[] a major life activity in order to constitute a disability. As a result, I believe that the ADA's definition of disability cannot bear the interpretation adopted by the EEOC in 29 C.F.R. 1630 App. 1630.2(j), Sullivan v. Everhart, 494 U.S. 83, 92, 110 S.Ct. 960, 966, 108 L.Ed.2d 72 (1990), and therefore, that this Court should not give effect to the EEOC's interpretive rule. See Public Employees Retirement Sys. v. Betts, 492 U.S. 158, 171, 109 S.Ct. 2854, 2863, 106 L.Ed.2d 134 (1989) ([O]f course, no deference is due to agency interpretations at odds with the plain language of the statute itself). [ Id. at 766-767.] Countering the argument presented by Judge Moore that the EEOC approach is consistent with the legislative history of the act, Judge Kennedy reasoned that [w]here the statutory text is unambiguous ... as I believe it is here, that ends the matter. `[W]e do not resort to legislative history to cloud a statutory text that is clear.' Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135, 147-148, 114 S.Ct. 655, 662, 126 L.Ed.2d 615 (1994). Gilday at 767. Michigan law in this regard is in accord. Luttrell v. Dep't of Corrections, 421 Mich. 93, 101, 365 N.W.2d 74 (1984); Tryc, supra . Consequently, we reject the plaintiff's argument that the legislative history of the HCRA supports the view that an individual's handicapped status should be determined without regard to his actual condition with mitigating measures. [18] We also find persuasive defendant's argument that the EEOC approach creates a slippery slope that would lead to the inclusion of many commonplace and relatively benign and easily remedied conditions into the act's definition of handicap. For example, an individual with myopia or hypertension that, when treated, is not substantially limiting would be deemed to be handicapped when viewed in his untreated state. This Court declines to head down that slippery slope. [19] We note that federal courts interpreting similar language in the Rehabilitation Act, the precursor of the ADA, have noted that the high purpose of the act of assuring that truly disabled yet capable individuals are protected from discrimination would be debased if the statute's protections could be invoked by relatively minor and commonplace impairments. See, e.g., Forrisi v. Bowen, 794 F.2d 931, 933 (C.A.4, 1986). To protect against this, the ADA and the HCRA include the requirement that an individual have a condition that substantially limits a major life activity. These words have real meaning. They set the standard for determining which conditions will meet the definition and which will not. By limiting the HCRA's protection to individuals having conditions that actually impose substantial limitations, the standard preserves the high purpose of the act. [20] To these points we add a word of caution. In some instances, an individual's condition will be substantially limiting despite the use of medications, prosthetic devices, or other mitigating measures. Courts must analyze the individual's condition case by case. For example, while probably most eyeglass wearers will not have a substantially limiting condition, [21] there should be no categorical conclusion that all eyeglass wearers fail to meet the HCRA definition. A visual problem that renders the person virtually blind in the morning before he dons his glasses and requires coke-bottle thick lenses to correct his visual acuity might meet the definition. Similarly, a person with an amputated leg who functions quite well with a prosthetic limb might nevertheless meet the definition if he can show that his ambulation is significantly slowed or limited in another way, or if he can show that the use of the limb in itself is time-consuming or substantially burdensome to the performance of his major life activities. An appropriate analogy is a statute that burdens an individual's right, but does not completely impede his ability to exercise that right. If the burdens associated with use of the mitigating device are great enough, the definition will be met. [22] We note that other jurists have noted the importance of a case-by-case analysis. Judges Kennedy and Guy, in both their separate opinions in Gilday emphasized this point. Judge Kennedy stated: Of course, it may well be in some instances that the controlling medication (or other mitigating measure) will itself impose a substantial limitation on an individual's major life activities. In such cases, the individual will be disabled [or handicapped] under the ADA [or the HCRA]. [ Id. at 767.] Similarly, Judge Guy stated: In my view, the impact of mitigating measures must be decided on a case-bycase basis. In some cases a person with a controlled medical problem or condition will be completely functional and should be evaluated as such. In other cases a person with a controlled medical condition may still be under a disability as defined by the Act. Indeed, what is necessary to control the condition may be part of what makes the person disabled. [ Id. at 768.] Likewise, we caution that courts must carefully analyze each individual claiming a handicap and must not categorically apply the definition to a given diagnosis. [23] Having concluded that the law requires the factfinder to assess the individual's condition as it actually exists, we hold that the trial court did not err in refusing to give the requested instruction. We therefore affirm the Court of Appeals affirmance of the jury verdict for the defendant. We do not, however, endorse the analysis of the Court of Appeals on this issue. That Court concluded that the requested instruction required a finding that a medicated individual is handicapped per se. We cannot agree. When viewed in context of the entire body of instructions given the jury, we do not agree that the requested instruction was misleading in this way. [24] We simply note that it was an erroneous interpretation of the law. We also note that, by allowing plaintiff and defense counsel to both present their conflicting views of the law, the jury was improperly placed in the position of choosing which version was the correct statement of the law. This said, however, because the jury's verdict was not inconsistent with substantial justice, any error in failing to properly instruct the jury regarding the law does not require reversal. Johnson v. Corbet, 423 Mich. 304, 326, 377 N.W.2d 713 (1985).