The court noted that the public policies underlying the law are clear: to protect “handicapped individuals from deprivations based on prejudice, stereotypes, or unfounded fear, while giving appropriate weight to such legitimate concerns of [employers] as avoiding exposing others to significant health and safety risks.”

The court said that it could see no irreconcilable conflict between the antidiscrimination law and the division's standards, notwithstanding the fact that the standards don't permit the use of nonimplantable hearing aids to satisfy the minimum hearing requirements necessary to perform the essential functions of a firefighter. The court went on to say that in any area where public safety is paramount, it did not read the law to preclude a determination by the division of human resources (rather than by a judge or jury) that an accommodation is not reasonable because it would impose an undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's (in this case, the public's) business due to the dangerous type of work involved and the nature of the risk to public safety that would arise if the accommodation failed — leaving the firefighter without an adequate hearing function — at a critical moment in the work. This is particularly so where such a determination is based on consultations with medical and occupational experts in the field; is not the product of prejudice, stereotypes or unfounded fear; and is ratified by the legislature.

Read harmoniously in this fashion, the court concluded that the statutes are consistent with and promote the legislature's purpose and policies of protecting “handicapped individuals from deprivation based on prejudice … while giving appropriate weight to … avoiding exposing others to significant health and safety risks.” The court said that where, as here, a level of hearing acuity reflected in the hearing standard is an essential qualification for a municipal firefighter (a determination not disputed by Carleton) and the accommodation sought (the use of hearing aids) is not a reasonable one as determined by the legislature, Carleton had no reasonable expectation of proving that he is a qualified handicapped person. Consequently, his claim was dismissed.

This case is noteworthy for a number of reasons, including:

• A definitive ruling (for Massachusetts) that people who require the use of hearing aids may, under certain circumstances, legally be excluded from employment as firefighters.
• The impact of standards making, specifically, the fact that NFPA 1582 was adopted by the state and therefore became law.
• Medical requirements for firefighters were distinguished from those of police officers, based on different working conditions.
• The importance of experts and thorough review of the subject matter when drafting standards and laws.

Philip C. Stittleburg, MIFireE, is a Wisconsin attorney who has been chief of the La Farge (Wis.) Fire Department since 1977. He is legal counsel for the Wisconsin State Firefighters Association and the National Volunteer Fire Council. Stittleburg is also currently the chairman of the NVFC and a director of the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation. He is the secretary of the National Fire Protection Association and a member of the NFPA Occupational Safety and Health Technical Committee that drafted NFPA 1582.