Skip to main content

Obesity Is NOT a Disability Under the ADA


Morriss v. BNSF Railway - Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals


Facts:  Melvin Morriss ("Morriss") applied to be a machinist at BNSF.  BNSF offered him the job but made it contingent upon him passing the company's standard medical review.  BNSF had a policy not to hire new applicants for safety sensitive positions (such as a machinist) if the applicant had a body mass index ("BMI") 40 or over.  After two exams, Morriss was found to have a BMI of 40.9 and 40.4.  As a result, BNSF revoked the conditional job offer on the grounds that Morriss was "[n]ot currently qualified for the safety sensitive Machinist position due to significant health and safety risks associated with Class 3 obesity ([BMI] of 40 or greater)."

Morriss subsequently sued BNSF for disability discrimination on the grounds that his obesity was a disability and that he was regarded as disabled by BNSF.  BNSF moved for summary judgment and argued that obesity is not a disability covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") because it is not a "physical impairment."  The District Court agreed and granted BNSF's motion for summary judgment.  Morriss appealed the District Court's ruling.

Holding:  The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals began its analysis by clarifying that under the ADA, an employer cannot discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of his/her disability.  The ADA defines "disability" is a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.  However, the ADA does not define "physical impairment".  With that being said, the EEOC has defined "physical impairment" as "[a]ny physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more body systems...".  Perhaps most importantly, the EEOC has not identified obesity, in and of itself, as a physical impairment, unless it is a physiological disorder or condition and it affects a major body system.

Morriss argued that this definition could not be construed so narrowly and instead should be considered with other EEOC interpretive guidance.  However, the Court was unmoved by the arguments of Morriss and instead relied upon the Second and Sixth Circuits which had previously considered a similar issue.  In both cases, those circuits had held that to constitute an ADA impairment, a person's obesity must be the result of a physiological condition.  Under the holdings from both circuits, obesity, by itself, does not qualify as a physical impairment because " 'physical characteristics that are "not the result of a physiological disorder" are not considered "impairments" for the purposes of determining either actual or perceived disability.' " 

As a result, the Court held that because Morriss failed to present any evidence to establish a physiological disorder giving rise to obesity, his being overweight did not amount to him being protected under the ADA.

Judgment:  The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's granting of summary judgment in favor of BNSF on the grounds that obesity is not a protected disability under the ADA.

The Takeaway:  This is a very interesting case; actually one of the better written opinions I have come across recently.  I would advise readers to follow the Court's close analysis of the language of the ADA (along with the guidance on the issue from the EEOC) to see how the Court arrived at its conclusion.  In this case, the Court was careful to parse the language of the ADA to show that obesity alone does not amount to a covered disability under the ADA.  Without a claimant being able to establish a physiological characteristic that is the result of a physiological disorder, as in this case, an ADA claim cannot proceed.  

It is important to note, this is not a case where the Court rewrote the law or made a clear break from other circuits.  Instead, the Eighth Circuit tracked the language of the statute and pointed to similar holdings from the Second and Sixth Circuits in order to arrive at its ultimate conclusion that obesity is not a protected disability under the ADA. 

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Wollman

Date:  April 5, 2016

Opinion:  media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/16/04/143858P.pdf

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more