Washington Supreme Court Aligns WLAD 'Disability' Definition with ADA Standard: Wash.

Introduction

In the landmark case of Kenneth McCLARTY v. TOTEM ELECtric, 157 Wn.2d 214 (2006), the Supreme Court of Washington addressed a pivotal issue regarding the definition of "disability" under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), chapter 49.60 RCW. Kenneth McClarty, a former electrician with two decades of experience, filed a disparate treatment discrimination claim against his employer, Totem Electric, after alleging wrongful termination based on his diagnosed carpal tunnel syndrome. The central legal question revolved around how "disability" is defined within WLAD and its implications for discrimination claims.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Washington reviewed the appellate decision that had reversed the summary judgment dismissal of McClarty's claim, focusing specifically on the definition of "disability" under WLAD. The Court found the existing Washington Administrative Code (WAC) definition of "disability" to be circular and unworkable, as it required plaintiffs to prove discrimination in order to establish that a condition constitutes a disability. Consequently, the Court decided to align the WLAD's definition of "disability" with that established by the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). This new definition stipulates that a plaintiff is considered disabled under WLAD if they have:

A physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities;
A record of such an impairment;
Or are regarded as having such an impairment.

The Court reversed the lower appellate decision and remanded the case to the trial court to apply this standardized definition.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court extensively analyzed previous case law to establish a coherent and functional definition of "disability" under WLAD. Key precedents include:

PULCINO v. FEDERAL EXPRESS Corp., 141 Wn.2d 629 (2000): Defined disability for accommodation claims, emphasizing the need for a substantially limiting effect on job performance.
HILL v. BCTI INCOME FUND-I, 144 Wn.2d 172 (2001): Reinforced the Pulcino definition and criticized the circularity of the existing WAC definition.
Chi., Milwaukee, St. Paul Pac. R.R. v. Wash. State Human Rights Comm'n, 87 Wn.2d 802 (1976): Addressed vagueness in the statutory definition of "handicap," relying on plain English meanings.
Federal ADA statutes and interpretations were also pivotal in shaping the new definition adopted by the Court.

These precedents collectively influenced the Court's decision to adopt a definition consistent with federal standards, ensuring clarity and reducing the potential for litigation over definitional ambiguities.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's legal reasoning centered on the inadequacy of the existing WAC definition, which was deemed circular because it required a plaintiff to prove discrimination to establish that a condition is a disability. This structure undermined the plaintiff's ability to present a clear case and placed an undue burden on them. By aligning with the ADA's definition, which is well-established and widely understood, the Court sought to eliminate this procedural flaw.

The Court emphasized the importance of having a clear and non-circular definition to facilitate the fair application of WLAD. It argued that the ADA's definition provides a robust framework that covers not only those currently impaired but also those with a history of impairment or those perceived to have an impairment, thereby broadening the scope of protection without diluting its intent.

Furthermore, the Court highlighted that the WLAD should be construed liberally, as mandated by RCW 49.60.020, to effectively combat discrimination. By adopting the ADA's definition, the Court ensured consistency with federal law, which is particularly pertinent given the concurrent development of both statutes aimed at preventing similar forms of discrimination.

Impact

This judgment has significant implications for future employment discrimination cases in Washington State:

Standardization of Definitions: Aligning WLAD's "disability" definition with the ADA fosters uniformity in legal proceedings, making it easier for plaintiffs and employers to understand their rights and obligations.
Enhanced Protection: A broader and clearer definition ensures that more individuals who are genuinely impaired are protected against discrimination, thereby strengthening the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws.
Judicial Efficiency: Eliminating the circular definition reduces the complexity of cases, potentially leading to quicker resolutions and less resource-intensive litigation.
Legal Predictability: Consistent definitions across state and federal laws provide greater predictability for businesses in complying with anti-discrimination regulations.

Overall, the Court's decision promotes a more equitable and efficient legal framework for addressing disability discrimination in the workplace.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Understanding the legal intricacies of this judgment requires clarifying several complex concepts:

Disparate Treatment: This refers to situations where an employee alleges that they were treated differently—or unfavorably—based on a protected characteristic, such as disability.
Summary Judgment: A legal procedure where the court decides a case without a full trial, based on the arguments and evidence presented in legal briefs. It is granted when there are no genuine disputes over material facts.
Prima Facie Case: The initial burden of proof required to establish a claim, providing sufficient evidence to support the case unless contradicted by the opposing party.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): A federal law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in all areas of public life, including jobs, schools, transportation, and all public and private places open to the general public.
Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD): A state statute that prohibits discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, and other areas based on various protected characteristics, including disability.

By standardizing the definition of "disability" with the ADA, the Court ensures that these concepts are consistently applied, facilitating a clearer understanding for all parties involved in discrimination cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Washington's decision in McCLARTY v. TOTEM ELECtric marks a pivotal advancement in the interpretation of "disability" under the Washington Law Against Discrimination. By adopting the ADA's definition, the Court has harmonized state anti-discrimination laws with federal standards, thereby ensuring broader and more precise protections for individuals with disabilities. This alignment not only fosters legal consistency but also enhances the efficacy of anti-discrimination measures in the workplace. Moving forward, employers and employees in Washington can anticipate a clearer framework for addressing and adjudicating disability discrimination claims, promoting a more inclusive and equitable work environment.

Washington Supreme Court Aligns WLAD 'Disability' Definition with ADA Standard