Skip to main content

Seventh Circuit Finds That Obesity is NOT a Disability Under the ADA


Richardson v. Chicago Transit Authority - Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals


Facts:  Mark Richardson ("Richardson") worked for the Chicago Transit Authority ("CTA") as a bus operator beginning in 1993 until 2012.  In 2005, Richardson was reported to have weighed 350 pounds.  By 2009, he was reported to have weighed 566 pounds.  In February 2010, Richardson was absent from work because of the flu.  When he attempted to return, he was told he could not return to work until he controlled his blood pressure.  In September, Richardson was re-evaluated.  Concern arose over his weight as CTA bus seats were not designed to accommodate drivers weighing over 400 pounds.  However, weighing over 400 pounds did not automatically disqualify employees from working as bus operators.  An assessment was conducted which found that although Richardson could drive all of CTA's buses in a safe and trusted manner there were several safety concerns raised including the fact that Richardson could not make hand over hand turns, could not see the floor of the bus from his seat, and part of his body hung off the driver's seat.  A recommendation was made that it was unsafe for Richardson to operate a CTA bus at that time.

Rather than terminating Richardson, he was given the option to work with a doctor and lose weight in exchange for Richardson waiving the ability to bring various causes of action.  Richardson refused.  Nevertheless, CTA sought to have Richardson work with a doctor to lose weight.  Per CTA policy, Richardson's approximate two years of inactive status meant he could extend that inactive status by a year if he submitted medical documentation.  When Richardson failed to do so, CTA terminated his employment.

Richardson filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC") and was issued a right to sue letter.  Richardson proceeded to bring suit against CTA on the grounds that they violated the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") by "refus[ing] to allow [him] to return to work because it regarded him as being too obese to work as a bus operator."  After CTA's motion to dismiss was denied, CTA's motion for summary judgment was granted on the grounds that "to qualify as a protected physical impairment, claimants under the ADA must show that their severe obesity is caused by an underlying physiological disorder or condition."  As Richardson could not establish any such evidence, his ADA claim failed.  Richardson proceeded to appeal the district court's ruling.

Holding:  As readers are likely aware, the ADA prohibits employers from "discriminat[ing] against a qualified individual on the basis of disability."  An ADA claimant must show:  1) he is disabled; 2) he is otherwise qualified to perform the essential job functions with or without reasonable accommodation; and 3) the adverse job action was caused by his disability.

In this case, Richardson argued that under a 2008 amendment to the ADA, courts should broadly construe "impairment" to include extreme obesity, with or without evidence of an underlying physiological condition causing or contributing to the obesity.  The Court was unswayed, however.  While Congress had instructed the EEOC to amend some definitions included in the ADA, no such instruction was given as to the EEOC's definition of impairment.  Instead, the Court followed a line of reasoning from the Eighth Circuit which favored a "more natural reading of the interpretive guidance" and holds that an individual's weight only qualifies as a physical impairment if it falls outside the normal range and occurs as a result of a physiological disorder.

As for Richardson's claim that CTA took adverse action against him because of a perceived disability, the Court was not convinced.  For Richardson to prevail on this claim, he would need to prove that CTA discriminated against him not just based on its knowledge of his physical characteristic, the obesity, but also based on its belief that this characteristic was an impairment under the ADA.  In this instance, the evidence only established that CTA perceived Richardson's weight as a physical characteristic that made it unsafe for him to drive, not as a disability.

Judgment:  The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld summary judgment in favor of the employer on the grounds that the employee could not establish that his obesity, by itself, was a physical impairment under the ADA.

The Takeaway:  With this ruling, the Seventh Circuit joins several other circuits which have found obesity, by itself, is not a physical impairment under the ADA.  However, there is some disagreement on the matter, given the jurisdiction.  What does this mean for employers?  For starters, be careful when making an employment decision involving an employee's weight/obesity.  Depending what jurisdiction/circuit you are in, it would be wise to review the relevant rulings on the matter.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Flaum

Date:  June 12, 2019

Opinionhttps://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/18-2199/18-2199-2019-06-12.pdf?ts=1560373217

Comments

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

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

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