The federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (1990), as well as state statutes, provide protection for qualified individuals from employment discrimination based upon "disability." Courts have reached differing conclusions concerning the legal status of obesity. This comment provides a brief overview of two recent contradictory judicial decisions without discussing medical research, food marketing, and lifestyle issues.
The ADA defines "disability" as
"(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual;
(B)
a record of such an impairment; or
(C)
being regarded as having such an impairment ..." (42 USC Sec. 12102)
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has enacted a variety of regulations, and numerous judicial decisions address the question of "disability."
A.The following recent 2016 federal Court of Appeals decision determined that obesity is not a protected disability:
BNSF Railroad refused to hire an individual as a machinist, considered by BNSF to be a safety sensitive position, because his body mass index (BMI) was above 40. In brief summary, the Court concluded that an individual's weight is a physical impairment "only if it falls outside the normal range and it occurs as the result of a physiological disorder." (Morris v. BNSF Railway Co., Eighth Circuit, 2016). Consequently, BNSF had not discriminated based upon a physical impairment.
The Morris Court noted a similar decision had been reached by the Sixth Circuit in 2006, the Second Circuit in 1997, The Kentucky Supreme Court in 2015, the District of Columbia Court in 2008, and several federal District Courts.
The prospective employee, Morris, argued unsuccessfully that with the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 Congress intended a broad definition be applied to "disability." Additionally, the Sixth Circuit BNSF decision concluded that an employer could make employment decisions based upon "its assessment that although no physical impairment currently exists, there is an unacceptable risk of a future physical impairment."
B.A 2015 divided Montana Supreme Court decision (4:3) concluded that obesity might constitute a "physical or mental impairment" under Montana state law "if the individual's weight was outside of normal range and affects one or more body systems."
The Montana Supreme Court was asked the interpretative question by a Montana federal District Court ("certified question"). The certified question procedure exists when a federal court is applying state law and is uncertain concerning the correct interpretation of state law. Federal courts apply state law when citizens of different states decide to litigate in federal court and the amount in dispute exceeds $75,000 (dollar amount set by Congress in 1996). An example would be a traffic accident, and there is no applicable federal law ("diversity of citizenship" federal court jurisdiction).
This case also, like the prior case, involved a BNFS refusal to hire (BNSF Railway Co. v Feit, Montana Supreme Court, 2015). The federal court asked the Montana Supreme Court to determine if obesity is a "physical or mental impairment" under Montana State law. The Montana statute and regulations parallel federal law and the Montana Supreme Court reviewed federal standards.
The dissenting Montana Justices emphasized that the majority of courts considering whether or not obesity qualified as a disability determined that the weight must both be outside the normal range and also be the result of a physiological disorder.
My observation is that the overall legal trend appears to be that obesity alone does not constitute a disability. However, a number of courts have not considered this question. Consequently, one must research the judicial decisions of a particular jurisdiction.
This comment provides a brief educational overview of a complex topic and is not intended to provide legal advice. Always consult an experienced employment and discrimination attorney in specific situations.