Appellate Law

CA1: safety burden on defendant under Maine Human Rights Act

By S. COTUS

Warren v. United Parcel Service, No. 07-2197 affirms a jury verdict in a Maine Human Rights Act ("MHRA") case, in which an epileptic employee claimed that he was discriminated against.  UPS argued that the ?safety? exception wasn?t properly explained to the jury.  The District Court judge treated it as a ?defense? for the defendants to show.  ?It did so based on differences in language between the federal Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the MHRA, the 1996 amendment to and recodification of the Act by the Maine legislature, and the reasoning of the Maine Law Court in other cases.?  Some, but not all, of UPS?s driving positions require a ?DOT card? which is not issued to epileptics, no matter how much they have their seizures under control.  In fact, the First and the District Court seem to say that Maine had a specific policy reason for allocating this burden with the defendant.  Likewise, UPS? argument that state-law ?reasonable accommodations? were not properly instructed failed.

Full post as published by Appellate Law and Practice on March 07, 2008 (boomark / email).