36 A.3d 483
Md.2012Background
- Meade, a physician’s assistant, has a latex allergy diagnosed around 1997–1998 with potentially severe reactions to airborne latex particles.
- Children's Manor Montessori School used powdered latex gloves for diaper changes prior to Meade’s complaint.
- Meade notified the school of her allergy and requested a switch to non-powdered gloves; the school did not change gloves due to supplier concerns.
- Ghosh, the school administrator, suggested Meade withdraw her son to avoid potential litigation; Meade then filed a discrimination complaint under Maryland Article 49B, § 42 and Howard County Code § 12.210 A.
- Howard County Office of Human Rights found reasonable cause and supported a prima facie case of disability discrimination and retaliation; Meade proceeded to circuit court for damages.
- Trial resulted in a jury verdict in Meade’s favor for discrimination and retaliation, with damages and attorney’s fees; the Court denied both JNOV motions; Court of Special Appeals reversed, prompting certiorari to the Maryland Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether latex allergy qualifies as a handicap under Howard County Code | Meade’s allergy is an impairment substantially limiting major life activities | The allergy does not meet the statutory standard or the required strictness | Yes, Meade’s allergy is a handicap under the Code |
| Whether socialization and parenting are major life activities and substantially limited | Meade’s allergy substantially limits socialization and parenting | Meade fails to prove substantial limitations on parenting/socialization | Yes, socialization and parenting can be major life activities substantially limited by the allergy |
| Whether the statutory standard should follow strict ADA interpretation | Maryland remedial statute should be liberally construed in favor of claimants | Federal ADA strict interpretation should control | Liberally construed under Maryland remedial statute; not bound by strict ADA standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Haas v. Lockheed Martin, 396 Md. 469 (2007) (remedial statutes liberal construction; avoid federal paradigms when inappropriate)
- Toyota Motor Mfg., Ky., Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (2002) (limits on disability interpretation; strict standard for substantial limitation)
- Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999) (narrowing of ADA protections prior to amendments)
- University of Maryland v. Boyd, 93 Md. App. 303 (1992) (socialization as a major life activity supported by COMAR/Regulations)