On Monday, the commission will take public testimony on an amendment that would define someone as disabled if they "cannot function normally without medication, auxiliary aids or prosthetic devices."

The amendment would put in writing what has been the practice of the commission for 30 years, said Patricia Ryan, executive director of the Human Rights Commission.

But the change has businesses worried about the potential for increased cost and the possibility of facing discrimination lawsuits.

As an example, if a person wears a hearing aid and can perform normal work functions, the employer also has to consider how that same person would perform while not wearing a hearing aid, said John Gause, an attorney for the Maine Disability Rights Center.

"The change is so, under state law, you look at a person with the hearing aid out," he said.

That person would be considered disabled and entitled to accommodations at work that would help the person perform his or her job better.

Sticking with the hearing aid example, a company might have to provide an assisted-listening device on a telephone for the employee, Gause said. It also means that a person can sue their employer if they feel proper accommodations haven't been made because of their disability.

That concerns the Maine State Chamber of Commerce and Philip Moss, a lawyer with Moon, Moss, McGill & Shapiro in Portland.

Moss said the proposed amendment is more strict than federal case law and could force companies to make accommodations for people who wear glasses or take allergy medicine.

Once someone is classified as disabled, there's a strict protocol that must be followed, which means companies would have to determine on a case-by-case basis who is entitled to extra help at work because of a disability.

He said the change would be burdensome to businesses, increase the caseload of the Maine Human Rights Commission and subject companies to what he called "dual regulation." That means they would have to follow state and federal law, and if they have companies in more than one state, that could mean a number of different standards.

"Who's going to pay for it?" Moss said.

Gause said he doesn't believe it will result in more litigation because the proposal simply puts in writing what has been the practice all along. He noted that Rhode Island and Massachusetts, along with other states, have similar definitions.

Written testimony on the proposal will be accepted until Feb. 24. Ryan said a final decision on the amendment likely won't be made until the April 11 meeting of the commission.

From Blethen Maine Newspaper