Written on .

The subject of morbidly obese plaintiffs under the amended Americans with Disabilities Act (ADAAA) has generated a lot of interest as well as litigation.  The most recent application of the law occurred in a case in which an employer was granted summary judgment, against both a "disability" theory and a "regarded as" theory under the expanded and amended ADAAA.  Morriss v. BNSF Railway Co., 32 AD Cases 1173 (C.A. 8, April 5, 2016). 

The plaintiff had applied for a machinist position with the railroad company, and his offer of employment was contingent on a satisfactory medical review.  The plaintiff filed suit contending that the employer discriminated against him when it revoked its offer of employment based on his obesity.  He claimed that his obesity was an actual disability under the ADA and that the employer regarded his obesity as an actual disability.  The employer was granted summary judgment on both counts and the plaintiff appealed.

The appellate court affirmed the lower court's summary judgment ruling for the employer, and its analysis of the case is instructive.  First, the court found that an individual's weight is generally a physical characteristic that qualifies as a physical impairment only if it falls outside the normal range and it occurs as the result of a physiological disorder.  Both requirements must be satisfied before a physical impairment, and thus an ADA violation, can be found.  Second, the court found that earlier cases dealing with the issue were still applicable, as the post-ADAAA era only changed the courts' interpretation of "substantially limits" and "major life activity" to insure broad coverage of individuals with disabilities, but Congress gave no instructions regarding the definition of "physical impairment."

Next, the court found that obesity, in and of itself, is not a physical impairment simply because it has been labeled "severe," "morbid" or "Class III" obesity.  Instead, weight is merely a physical characteristic - not a physical impairment - unless it is both outside the normal range and a result of an underlying physiological disorder.  In so ruling, the court rejected a provision in the EEOC Compliance Manual which states that "severe obesity," "body weight more than 100% over the norm" is an impairment.  Even after the enactment of the ADAAA, to be considered a physical impairment, it must result from an underlying physiological disorder or condition.

In rejecting the argument that the employer regarded him as having a physical impairment, the appeals court found that the ADA does not prohibit discrimination based on a perception that a physical characteristic - as opposed to a physical impairment - may eventually lead to a physical impairment as defined under the Act.  As noted by the district court, the EEOC's own interpretive guidance specifically states that, "the definition [of impairment]. . . does not include characteristic pre-disposition to illness or disease."  29 C.F.R. Part 1630.

Editor's Note - This ruling provides a useful precedent to employers in defending obesity discrimination cases.  It also furnishes some useful explanations of the application of the ADAAA.  However, obesity cases remain controversial and ripe candidates for litigation.

Get Email Updates

Receive newsletters and alerts directly in your email inbox. Sign up below.

Recent Content

supreme court building, outdoors, blue sky

Supreme Court Reinstates Stay of OSHA Vaccine Mandate

In a 6-to-3 decision published January 13, 2022 the U.S. Supreme Court has stayed implementation of an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS)...
viles of vaccines indoors

The Supreme Court Stays the OSHA ETS; CMS Vaccine Mandate for Healthcare Workers Goes Forward

Yesterday, we received decisions from the US Supreme Court on the status of the OSHA COVID-19 ETS and the CMS vaccine mandate for healthc...
number 15 on a brick wall

Federal Contractor Minimum Wage Final Rule Requires $15.00 Minimum Wage

On November 22, 2021, the Department of Labor's (DOL) Wage and Hour Division issued a final rule implementing President Biden's Executive...
covid vaccine viles

Appeals Court Lifts Stay to OSHA Vaccination ETS (Updated)

On Friday night, December 17, 2021, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati lifted the stay of OSHA's Emergency Temporary Standa...
walkout, outdoors, red hats

Workplace Walk-outs and Strikes This Year Have More than Doubled

Unions have engaged in over 240 major strikes this year, doubling the number from last year. Some have labeled the situation "strike-tobe...
Federal business building, indoors

Federal Contractors Soon to Be Required to Verify They Have Affirmative Action Plans

In general, companies that do business with the federal government are required to have affirmative action plans. Such plans address how ...

Wimberly, Lawson, Steckel, Schneider & Stine

3400 Peachtree Road, Ste 400 / Lenox Towers / Atlanta, GA 30326 /404.365.0900

Where Experience Counts

Thank you for visiting the firm's website. Please note that this website is intended for general information purposes only and does not constitute an offer of representation or create an attorney-client relationship with the firm. The firm welcomes receipt of electronic mail but the act of sending electronic mail alone does not create an attorney-client relationship. You may reproduce materials available at this site for your own personal use and for non-commercial distribution. All copies must include the firm's copyright notice.

© 2020 Wimberly, Lawson, Steckel, Schneider & Stine P.C. | Site By JSM