 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Butterfield v. Sidney Public School8/30/2001
examiner found that he was disabled and that those findings were supported by substantial evidence. Consequently, Butterfield argues that the Commission and the District Court erred by disregarding the hearing examiner's findings to conclude that he was not physically disabled.
The District asserts that the Commission did not reverse the hearing examiner's findings of fact. It contends that the Commission simply reversed the examiner's conclusion that Butterfield was disabled or regarded as disabled. The District contends that that conclusion was incorrect because Butterfield failed to prove that he was significantly restricted in performing a "broad range of jobs" and showed only that he could not perform the custodian's job because it required lifting more than 50 pounds. Having reviewed the record and the hearing examiner's findings, we now conclude that the District mischaracterizes Butterfield's burden and that he satisfied his burden when he proved and the hearing examiner found that he is significantly restricted in the ability to perform that class of jobs which requires heavy physical labor, or at least that his employer regarded him as so restricted.
Section 49-2-303, MCA, provides that it is an unlawful discriminatory practice to refuse employment to a person because of physical disability when the demands of the position do not require a distinction based on physical disability. Section 49-2-101(19)(a), MCA, defines physical or mental disability as an impairment that substantially limits one or more of a person's major life activities or is regarded by the employer as such an impairment.
"Major life activities" are not defined in Montana's Human Rights Act. However, we have previously relied on federal regulations adopted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) pursuant to the Federal Rehabilitation Act for purposes of defining "major life activities." See Hafner v. Conoco, Inc. (1994), 268 Mont. 396, 402, 886 P.2d 947, 951. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2 (2000) of those regulations provides in relevant part as follows:
(h) physical or mental impairment means:
(1) any physiological disorder, or condition, . . . affecting one or more of the following body systems: . . . musculoskeletal . . .
(i) Major life activities means functions such as . . . performing manual tasks, . . . and working.
(3) with respect to the major life activity of working -
(i) the term substantially limits means significantly restricted in the ability to perform either a class of jobs or a broad range of jobs in various classes as compared to the average person having comparable training, skills, and abilities.
(l) is regarded as having such an impairment means:
(2) has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits major life activities only as a result of the attitudes of others toward such impairment;
In other words, based on the federal regulations adopted pursuant to the Federal Rehabilitation Act after which Montana's Human Rights Act was patterned, Butterfield had to prove that he is disqualified from "a class of jobs."
In applying the provisions of our Human Rights Act, we have also in the past relied on the EEOC Interpretive Guidelines and, in particular, the Interpretive Guideline to 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j) which defines "substantially limits" as applied to the major life activity of working. See Reeves v. Dairy Queen, Inc., 1998 MT 13, 25, 287 Mont. 196, 25, 953 P.2d 703, 25.
That same Interpretive Guideline to the extent that it is relevant to the issue in this case, provides:
On the other hand, an individu
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Montana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|