| For years, Washington State has dealt with confusing definitions of the legal term “disability,” and those inconsistent terms have lead to inconsistent and confusing determinations about what it means to be disabled.
In the decision of the Washington Supreme Court in McClarty v. Totem Electric (July 6), the Court acknowledged that the prior interpretation of our state definition (i.e., taking into consideration any medical condition that was abnormal), was too broad and “trivialize[d] the discrimination suffered by persons with disabilities.”
Even the attorneys arguing before the Washington Supreme Court had to concede at oral argument that under the broad terms of Washington definition, a receding hairline constitutes a disability, a point that the Supreme Court emphasized.
In order to clear up the confusion, the Washington Supreme Court adopted the definition of disability as set forth in the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
A plaintiff bringing suit under the Washington Law against Discrimination may now establish that he has a disability if he:
- Has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities,
- Has a record of such an impairment, or
- Is regarded as having such an impairment.
McClarty gives Washington employers a single standard to follow, the standard articulated by federal law and applied by federal courts. | 
