Dahill v. Boston Police Department (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court)

The U.S. District Court in Massachusetts asked the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court whether Chapter 151B requires consideration of mitigating or corrective devices in determining whether a person has a handicap. The U.S. Supreme Court, in the Sutton case, has held that a person can be considered "disabled" under the Americans with Disabilities Act only "if, notwithstanding the use of a corrective device, that individual is substantially limited in a major life activity." On behalf of Associated Industries of Massachusetts, NELF filed an amicus brief in the SJC urging the Court to define the parallel state term "handicapped" similarly. The NELF brief contended that to assess whether an impairment is substantially limiting without regard to the individual’s use of mitigating or corrective measures is, in many cases, to indulge in speculation and conjecture. NELF also argued that extending Chapter 151B to countless individuals whose impairments do not substantially limit their performance of major life activities will overburden the Commonwealth’s judicial resources. The Massachusetts court has declined to follow federal law, relying instead on guidelines issued by the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination which provide that the existence of an impairment should be determined "without regard to whether its effect can be mitigated by measures such as medication, auxiliary aids or prosthetic devices." NELF believes that this decision fails to distinguish between individuals who are truly handicapped and the growing portion of the population that function normally with the aid of eye glasses, hearing aids or some form of medication. It also creates a two standards, one federal and one state, making it more difficult for multi-state employers to administer  compliance.