# Meade v. Shangri-La Partnership

> Court of Appeals of Maryland · January 26, 2012 · 424 Md. 476

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9753387

## Case

- **Full name:** Lisa MEADE v. SHANGRI-LA PARTNERSHIP and a Business T/A & D/B/A Children’s Manor Montessori School
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Maryland
- **Decided:** January 26, 2012
- **Citations:** 424 Md. 476; 36 A.3d 483; 25 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1776; 2012 Md. LEXIS 63; 2012 WL 224892
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Raker
- **Judges:** Bell, Harrell, Battaglia, Greene, Adkins, Eldridge, Raker
- **Cited by:** 4 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9753387

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that using federal cases to construe similar Maryland statutes is appropriate, but not when the statutes are different and could be construed to have different meanings

## Opinion text

RAKER, J.
dissenting.
I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Special Appeals for all of the reasons set forth in Shangri-La Limited Partnership v. Meade, 181 Md.App. 127 , 955 A.2d 834 (2008).
The complaint did not allege that Meade’s allergy impaired her major life activities of parenting and socialization. The complaint made reference only to “major life activities including breathing.” There was no reference to parenting or socialization. Indeed, counsel said nothing “about any limitation upon Meade’s ability to engage in the major life activities of socialization or parenting.” Id. at 142 , 955 A.2d at 843 . The Court of Special Appeals noted as follows:
“The complaint did not allege that the allergy also impaired the major life activities of parenting and socialization. During opening statements, Meade’s counsel argued that Meade’s ‘latex allergy affects, among other things, her breathing.’ Not only did Meade fail to produce sufficient *502 evidence to show that her ability to socialize and parenting were substantially limited, these major life activities were never mentioned to the jury by Meade’s counsel during closing arguments. In his closing argument, Meade’s counsel asserted:
‘You’re going to be called upon to apply the law to the facts. You’ve heard me summarize the facts. Let’s talk about how it applies to the law. She has [a] handicap — is [sic] her latex allergy. It affects a major life function. Her breathing. There are many major life functions. Walking. Talking. Being able to move about uninhibited. Being able to hear, being able to see. And being able to breathe. I don’t know if I could characterize one as more important than the other, but I would certainly characteriz[e] breathing as a major life function.’ ”
Id. at 142 , 955 A.2d at 842 (alterations in original).
The Court of Special Appeals held that the trial court erred in basing its denial of the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (“JNOV”) on the possibility that the jury made a finding that a major life activity other than breathing was impaired. Id. at 143 , 955 A.2d at 843 . The intermediate appellate court reasoned as follows:
“We fail to see how the jury could reasonably have concluded that the major life activities that supported Meade’s claim of being handicapped were the activities of socialization and parenting. But even if the jury had been sufficiently creative to consider such alternative possibilities, the evidence of any limitation upon Meade’s activities was even more sparse with regard to socialization and parenting. As the Supreme Court stated in [Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184, 198 , 122 S.Ct. 681, 691 , 151 L.Ed.2d 615, 631 (2002)], quoted above, in order for a person to be considered disabled, the limitation upon the pertinent major life activities must be more than a series of inconveniences. Instead, ‘an individual must have an impairment that prevents or severely restricts the individual from doing activities that are of central importance to most people’s daily lives. The impairment’s impact must *503 also be permanent or long term.’ (Emphasis added.) Meade presented no evidence that would have permitted the jury to find that her allergy had ‘prevented] or severely restrict[ed]’ her socialization or parenting. Consequently, the trial court erred in basing its denial of the motion for JNOV on the possibility that the jury made a finding that a major life activity other than breathing was impaired.”
Id. I agree, and hence, would affirm the decision of the Court of Special Appeals.
Judge BATTAGLIA authorizes me to state that she joins the views expressed here.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9753387. Public record. Not legal advice.