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,...
Post a Comment
Read more

San Diego Rolls Back Vaccine Mandate For City Workers

Last Tuesday, the San Diego City Council voted to do away with the vaccine mandate for city employees. The city’s vaccine mandate that was in place required city workers to get the coronavirus vaccine or risk termination.  Perhaps to this surprise of no one, the city’s policy came under fire with 14 employees being terminated and over 100 other employees resigning.  With the coronavirus subsiding, including in Southern California, the San Diego City Council took action. Now, bear in mind, the repeal of the vaccine mandate does not take place immediately. With that being said, the mandate will be repealed March 8th.  I suppose the question now is, what other cities or regions follow San Diego’s lead? For additional information:   https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/story/2023-01-24/san-diego-repeals-controversial-covid-19-vaccine-mandate-citing-drop-in-cases-hospitalizations
Post a Comment
Read more

NLRB: Former Employee Cannot Be Barred From Work Premises After Filing Wage Suit

MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC - NLRB Facts :  MEI-GSR Holdings, LLC d/b/a Grand Sierra Resort & Casino ("GSR") operated a facility that included a hotel, casino, restaurant, clubs, bars, and a pool which were all open to the general public.  Tiffany Sargent ("Sargent") was briefly employed by GSR as a "beverage supervisor" in December of 2012.  After her employment ended, Sargent continued to socialize at one of the clubs.  GSR had a long standing practice of allowing former employees to patronize its facility and did not prohibit Sargent from doing so.  In June of 2013, Sargent and another employee filed a class and collective action against GSR for alleged unpaid wages, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.  In July of 2014, GSR denied Sargent access to an event at one of the clubs.  GSR followed up with a letter and stated that with the on-going litigation (from the wage suit), it decided to bar Sargent from the premises. ...
1 comment
Read more