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,...

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

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. ...