Advertisement

May 18, 2013

Montana Supreme Court Holds Obesity Alone Is An Impairment

On July 6, 2012, the Montana Supreme Court held that obesity alone, without any underlying physiological disorder or condition, constitutes an impairment for purposes of the Montana Human Rights Act “MHRA).  A copy of the case, BNSF Railway Co. v. Feit, can be found here

In BNSF Railway, Feit, an applicant for employment at BNSF, filed an administrative complaint with the Montana Department of Labor and Industry (the “Department”) claiming that BNSF discriminated against him because of a perceived disability—obesity—in violation of the MHRA.  The Department found in Feit’s favor, and the Montana Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) agreed.  BNSF then asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana to review the Commission’s decision.  The U.S. District Court sent a certified question to the Montana Supreme Court, asking it to determine whether obesity that is not the symptom of a physiological condition constitutes an impairment under the MHRA. 

The Montana Supreme Court held that obesity is an impairment, even if the obesity did not result from an underlying physiological disorder or condition.  The Court relied on an interpretive guidance from the EEOC which states that weight is not an impairment when it is “within ‘normal range’ and [is] not the result of a physiological disorder.”  The Court interpreted this guidance to mean that if the individual’s weight was outside the normal range, it constituted an impairment, regardless of whether there was a physiological disorder present.  The Court did not rule on whether this impairment rose to the level of a disability.  Instead, the Court noted that such an impairment will constitute a disability if the individual’s weight “substantially limits . . . or is regarded as substantially limiting, a major life activity.”

Although this decision dealt with the application of Montana state law, the decision may affect employers across the country as it relies upon the EEOC’s regulations and interpretive guidance under the ADA.  Should other courts adopt this interpretation of these regulations, obesity alone, without any underlying physiological disorder or condition, could form the basis of lawsuits under the ADA.

© 2013 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

About the Author

Of Counsel

Mark D. Scudder is an of counsel member of Barnes & Thornburg LLP's Labor and Employment Law Department in the Fort Wayne, Indiana office. Mr. Scudder’s practice covers virtually all areas of labor and employment law, including litigation concerning discriminatory practices, worker’s compensation benefits, collective bargaining agreement administration, and grievance and arbitration proceedings. He has represented clients in state and federal courts at all stages of litigation, from pre-litigation counseling, alternative dispute resolution, trial and appeal. He has also...

260-425-4618

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.