Court Opinion

ID: 9779153
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:38:27.188182+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:22.402036
License: Public Domain

MAUZY, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I disagree with the court’s treatment of the definitions of “handicap” and “handicapped person” and in the conclusion that Redmon’s visual impairment was not a handicap as a matter of law. Although the court of appeals erred in holding that a claimant need not prove that he suffers from a handicap, I would affirm that court’s decision and remand the cause for trial.

*319
Definitions

Under § 2.01(7)(A) of article 5221k, a “handicapped person” is defined as
A person who has a mental or physical handicap, including mental retardation, hardness of hearing, deafness, speech impairment, visual handicap, being crippled or any other health impairment that requires special ambulatory devices or services, as defined in Section 121.002(4), Human Resources Code, but does not include a person because he is addicted to any drug or illegal or federally controlled substances or because he is addicted to the use of alcohol.
Similarly, “handicap” is defined in § 2.01(7)(B) as
A condition either mental or physical that includes mental retardation, hardness of hearing, deafness, speech impairment, visual handicap, being crippled, or any other health impairment that requires special ambulatory devices or services as defined in Section 121.002(4), Human Resources Code, but does not include a condition of addiction to any drug or illegal or federally controlled substances or a condition of addiction to the use of alcohol.
Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 5221k § 2.01(7)(A), (B) (Vernon 1987).
The definitions of “handicap” and “handicapped person,” both the original version in the Human Resources Code and as amended at article 5221k, ambiguously include “visual handicap” in the definition. To determine what the legislature meant by a “visual handicap” this court must examine the entire Commission on Human Rights Act, and its predecessor statutes. The Act cites as its purposes, the execution of policies embodied in the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and to establish a commission to locally enforce laws against discrimination pursuant to federal enforcement provisions. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(c). . The other purpose listed in the statute illustrates the legislature’s goal of protecting individuals from discrimination in employment.
A statute providing redress for an employer’s discriminatory acts is remedial in nature because it benefits the public good. Board of Insurance Commissioners v. Great Southern Life Ins. Co., 150 Tex. 258, 239 S.W.2d 803, 809 (1951). To strictly interpret the terms of a remedial provision flies in the face of the underlying purpose of that legislation. Accordingly, such remedial provisions are generally afforded the most comprehensive and liberal construction possible. City of Mason v. West Texas Utilities Co., 150 Tex. 18, 237 S.W.2d 273, 280 (1951). This court specifically stated in West Texas Utilities that such a statute “certainly should not be given a narrow, technical construction which would defeat the very purpose for which the statute was enacted.” 237 S.W.2d at 280 (emphasis added).
The fact that a list of conditions is specifically included in the statutory definition implies an incomplete rather than a complete listing. Under general rules of statutory construction, it is well settled that the words “including” and “that includes” act as words of enlargement, rather than limitation or restriction. Republic Insurance Co. v. Silverton Elevators, Inc., 493 S.W.2d 748 (Tex.1973). Pierce v. Peters, 599 S.W.2d 849, 851 (Tex.Civ.App.—San Antonio 1980, no writ). Additionally, the recodi-fied version contained an amendment that specifically excluded any condition of drug or alcohol addiction. Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. Ann. art. 5221k (Vernon 1987). This indicates the legislature’s plain intent that the statute covers all other physical or mental disabilities. State v. Richards, 157 Tex. 166, 301 S.W.2d 597, 600 (1957).
The majority concludes that the language used in the original statute reveals the legislature’s concern with only serious impairments. The majority relies on the “contrasting” terms: “handicapped” and “able-bodied.” I fail to see how these two words, contrasting or otherwise, in any way illustrate the intent deduced by the majority. If the legislature had intended such an interpretation, it could have easily added the words “serious” or “severe” to the definition. To impose such a limitation by judicial fiat only works to further complicate cases brought under the statute. There is no bright line distinction that can *320be drawn to indicate what is a “serious impairment.” Not only does this narrow definition conflict with well-settled rules of statutory construction, the majority’s opinion provides no explanation of what degree of impairment is required before an individual’s mental or physical condition is severe enough to fit within the statutory definition. There is no way to determine at what point an individual’s vision becomes severely impaired. Would the individual have to be completely blind, legally blind or merely blind enough that he is unable to read the majority’s opinion? There is no benchmark to measure severity.
I would adopt a workable definition consistent with the interpretation employed by the Commission on Human Rights. As indicated in the Attorney General’s opinion specifically approving the Commission’s definition, the terms “handicap” and “handicapped person” should be construed broadly. I would also follow the lead of a majority of other jurisdictions in adopting a definition that includes all persons suffering from physical disability. As the New Jersey Supreme Court indicated in Andersen v. Exxon Co., 89 N.J. 483, 446 A.2d 486 (1982), the remedial nature of its statute, like the Texas statute, calls for coverage of the slightly handicapped as well as those who are severely disabled. 446 A.2d at 492.

Jury Issues

I would also hold that the question of whether an individual is or is not a handicapped person constitutes a fact question for the jury’s determination. Questions of fact exist regarding whether or not Red-mon’s impaired vision and limited ability to judge distances constitutes a handicap and whether such a condition would impair her ability to reasonably perform the job of maintenance helper. Therefore, I would affirm the decision of the court of appeals and remand this case to the trial court.
KILGARLIN, J., joins in this dissent.