Advertisement

May 22, 2013

Morbid Obesity as a Covered Disability under the ADA

Almost two years ago, we wrote that the EEOC had filed its first-ever lawsuit asserting that “severe” obesity was a protectable disability under the ADA.   That case, EEOC v. Resources for Human Development, Inc., provided little guidance to employers about where the EEOC would draw the line on when obesity is “severe” enough to constitute an ADA-protected disability.  Although it is still unclear where that line is, it is now clear that the EEOC considers “morbid” obesity” to be a protectable disability under the ADA.  

On July 24, the EEOC announced that it settled a disability discrimination lawsuit filed last year against BAE Systems for discrimination against an employee based on his actual or perceived disability, morbid obesity, by terminating his employment, denying him reasonable accommodation, and for otherwise denying him equal employment opportunities within BAE. A copy of the complaint in EEOC v. BAE Systems, Inc.

The employee, Ronald Kratz, II, weighed well in excess of 600 pounds, meaning that  he was morbidly obese (generally characterized by being at least twice the ideal body weight).  Kratz worked as a material handler in BAE’s manufacturing location outside Houston, where 90% of his job consisted of desk work and the remaining 10% was performed standing up or driving a forklift.  After being instructed to wear a seatbelt while driving the forklift, he asked for a seatbelt extender.  He did not receive the extender; instead, he was terminated two weeks later because, according to BAE, he could no longer do his job due to his weight.  

As part of the settlement, Kratz received $55,000.In addition, BAE must provide Kratz with six months of outplacement services, and must conduct training for, and issue written guidance to, BAE’s managers and human resources professionals on EEO compliance, disability discrimination law and responsibilities regarding reasonable accommodation to employees and applicants.  The company must also post an anti-discrimination notice in multiple locations. 

The EEOC's position that morbid obesity is a “disability” under the ADA may well find support in the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA).  The ADAAA retains the ADA's basic definition of "disability" as an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a record of such impairment, or being regarded as having such an impairment.  However, the ADAAA significantly expands the definition of "substantially limits" and "major life activities," thereby increasing the likelihood that morbid obesity (or for that matter even “severe” obesity or, perhaps, even “moderate” obesity) constitutes a federally protected “disability.”  In addition, under the ADAAA’s revised definition of “regarded as,” an employee no longer must establish that the employer perceived him or her to be substantially limited in a major life activity. The employee need only demonstrate that the employer took a prohibited adverse action based on its belief that the employee had an actual or perceived impairment, without regard to whether that condition was perceived to substantially limit a major life activity. 

The lesson: Because morbid obesity—and perhaps even obesity—may be considered a “disability” under the law, employers should tread lightly when making employment decisions based on an employee's weight or when making decisions that detrimentally impact overweight employees.  The same goes for any other “non-traditional” impairment, which, much to employers’ surprise, may also be considered a “disability” under the ADAAA’s expanded reach.

©1994-2013 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Associate

David is an associate in the firm's New York office, practicing in the Employment, Labor and Benefits Section.

David is experienced in representing employers and executives in all aspects of labor and employment law. He frequently counsels clients on issues related to discrimination, harassment, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage and hour, workforce reductions, leaves of absence, post-employment restrictive covenants, executive compensation, employee benefits and collective bargaining. David also reviews and drafts employment policies, handbooks, employment and...

(212) 692-6844

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.