Obesity and the ADA

sdiconza · May 2007

Can someone point me to rules, cases or agency decisions re: obesity and the ADA (i.e., is obesity considered a disability under the ADA)?

Chrissy1 · May 2007

Just like any other physical or mental impairment, the question really is whether the employee is substantially limited in a major life activity. Therefore, you'll have to look at whether the employee is limited in walking, talking, breathing, etc. Chances are, with morbid obesity it will be ADA-covered, from there, it is all a case-by-case decision.

KLeede · May 2007

The EEOC's website has regulations and guidelines about obesity as a disability, and there's a case called EEOC v. Watkins Motor Lines that has a good analysis of the whether obesity is a disability. It goes through the things Chrissy1 mentioned -- impairment, substantial limitation, etc.

sdiconza · May 2007

Thanks - very helpful - I appreciate it!!

bluefin995 · May 2007

A recent court of appeals decision expands the definition of disability in two important respects. First, the court held that a person of morbid obesity had a covered disability or was perceived as disabled when rejected for employment by a state agency. Second, it clarified how an applicant or employee could be "regarded as" disabled even when the applicant was only being denied one job with one employer. In Cook v. State of Rhode Island, discussed above, the court explained how an employer's rationale for denying employment to a person with morbid obesity may lead to ADA coverage. The court explained:

If the rationale proffered by an employer in the context of a single refusal to hire adequately evinces that the employer treats a particular condition as a disqualifier for a wide range of employment opportunities, proof of a far-flung pattern of [job] rejections may not be necessary. Put in slightly more concrete terms, denying an applicant even a single job that requires no unique physical skills, due solely to the perception that the applicant suffers from a physical limitation that would keep her from qualifying for a broad spectrum of jobs, can constitute treating an applicant as if her condition substantially limited a major life activity, viz., working . . . . We think there is a significant legal distinction between rejection based on a job-specific perception that the applicant is unable to excel at a narrow trade and a rejection based on more generalized perception that the applicant is impaired in such a way as would bar her from a large class of jobs.

Plaintiffs may use this ruling to challenge exclusions justified by a doctor's broadly worded medical restrictions such as "no heavy lifting" or "no prolonged standing, stooping or bending" in cases where the applicant claims to be fully capable of performing the job's essential functions. Unless a doctor's restrictions are tailored to specific job tasks or duties, broadly based restrictions on which an employer relies may create disability status. If more generally applied by other courts, this analysis has important implications for workers' compensation practices.

On the other hand, many more courts are continuing to construe

Obesity and the ADA

Comments