Source: http://www.epspros.com/news-resources/whitepapers/2013-prior/obesity-and-morbid-obesity-in-workplace.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 05:06:53+00:00

Document:
Would someone like Mr. O’Connor be able to win his case? The discussion below will answer this and other questions on the application of the ADA to obese and morbidly obese individuals, concluding with practical advice on how to legally and effectively manage overweight employees.
But what protections does the increasing percentage of obese workers have against workplace discrimination? May employers legitimately make employment decisions based on a person’s weight, assuming that maintaining a certain weight is not a bona fide occupational qualification? What responsibility do you have to provide a workplace free of weight-based discrimination and harassment?
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, which was passed in 1990, bars discrimination based on disability and requires that employers provide a reasonable accommodation in the workplace to qualified individuals with a disability.10 To be considered a person with a disability under the ADA, an individual must have: “(A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; (B) a record of such an impairment; or (C) be regarded as having such an impairment.”11 In other words, to enjoy the protections of the ADA, a person must show that he or she has a current disability, had a disability in the past, or is regarded by an employer as having a disability.
The allegedly disabling condition must usually be a bona fide medical or psychological condition. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s ADA regulations clearly state that, absent “exceptional” circumstances, obesity does not meet the definition of a disability under the ADA.14 result of a physiological impairment, being obese will probably not result in ADA protection. This means that obese people who are treated differently based upon their appearance alone will not enjoy the protections of the ADA.
Therefore, if an employer refuses to consider an obese applicant for a job because of a perception that the person’s obesity will interfere with his or her ability to perform the job, then the failure to hire may constitute discrimination under the ADA. Note that, in this case, the person would not need to be morbidly obese, but simply be a seriously overweight person regarded as having some sort of physiological impairment (includingmorbid obesity) that, in the eyes of the employer, would prevent them from doing his or her job.
As well, in Warner v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co.,19 the same federal district court refused to dismiss a morbidly obese plaintiff’s claim that he had been discriminated against because his employer regarded him as disabled based upon his weight.
Also note that, although an employee may not enjoy ADA protection because of his or her weight, that person may suffer from serious health conditions that would nonetheless bring them within the ADA. For example, as explained above, morbidly obese people often suffer from health problems such as diabetes, hypertension, heart disease, stroke, cancer, depression, and osteoarthritis.23 In fact, the EEOC has noted in its guidance on the definition of disability under the ADA that “a person with obesity may have an underlying or resultant physiological disorder, such as hypertension or a thyroid disorder, [which] is an impairment.”24 Employers are therefore well-advised not to immediately discount an obese employee’s request for an accommodation simply on the basis that the person’s obesity is not a condition protected by the ADA.
As you consider issues of weight discrimination in your workplace, be sure to keep the impact of state and local laws in mind. Although Michigan is the only state that has enacted a prohibition against weight discrimination,25some municipalities have enacted ordinances barring weight and personal appearance discrimination. For example, Washington, DC prohibits discrimination based on personal appearance,26 and ordinances passed in such cities as San Francisco bar weight and personal appearance discrimination.27 Also note that the disability discrimination laws of some states may contain a broader definition of disability than the ADA, which may encompass obesity.
Provide managers with at least a basic understanding of the ADA and all relevant state and local laws.
Review job descriptions to make sure that any weight requirements are reasonably related to the essential requirements of the job.
Do not create “regarded as” disabled claims by making assumptions about what job functions overweight employees can and cannot accomplish.
Treat requests for accommodation from overweight individual with delicacy and sensitivity, keeping in mind that obesity is often accompanied by health impairments that may entitle an employee to ADA protection.
Develop internal policies that mandate the courteous treatment of all employees, regardless of personal appearance.
Educate all employees—especially managers—on what is inappropriate, unprofessional, or illegal conduct toward overweight employees.
10 The analysis in this article also applies to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 706, which covers federal employees, federal contractors, and recipients of federal funding.
12 See Hazeldine v. Beverage Media, Inc., 954 F. Supp. 697 (S.D.N.Y. 1997) (employee’s weight did not limit major life activity).
14 29 C.F.R. §1630.2(j); see Andrews v. Ohio, 104 F.3d 803 (6th Cir. 1997); Francis v. City of Meriden, 129 F.3d 281 (2d Cir. 1997); Clemons v. The Big Ten Conference, No. 96 C 0124, 1997 WL 89227 (N.D. Ill. 1997) (college football official’s weight, which prevented the accomplishment of job functions, was not a disability where it did not interfere with his ability to do other jobs).
15 EEOC Compliance Manual Section 902: Definition of the Term Disability (Mar. 1995).
16 See, e.g., Cook v. Rhode Island Dep't of Mental Health, Retardation and Hospitals, 10 F.3d 17, 23 (1st Cir. 1993) (“The jury could have plausibly found that plaintiff had a physical impairment; after all, she admittedly suffered from morbid obesity . . . .”).
17 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(l).
21 See, e.g., EEOC v. Texas Bus Lines, 923 F. Supp. 965 (S.D. Tex. 1996); Connor, No. 3:02 CV 382 SRU, 2003 WL 1343259; cf. Ridge v. Cape Elizabeth School Dept., 77 F.Supp.2d 149, 163 (D. Me. 1999) (evidence that supervisor made obese plaintiff sugarless candy, frequently commented on plaintiff's and other people’s weight, and asked if plaintiff could fit under a table was not enough to sustain plaintiff’s claim that she was perceived to be substantially limited in the major life activity of walking).
22 See, e.g., Clemons, No. 96 C 0124, 1997 WL 89227 (employer could “legitimately expect that its officials maintain themselves in a physical condition such that they are able to move down the field with the football players”).
24 EEOC Compliance Manual Section 902: Definition of the Term Disability (Mar. 1995) (citing 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)).
25 Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 37.2102 (1985 & Supp. 1993).
26 D.C. Code Ann. § 1-2501 (1987 & Supp. 1993).
27 San Fran. Admin. Code Chapters 12A, 12B, & 12C; San Fran. Municipal/Police Code Art. 33.

References: § 12101
 v. 
 § 706
 v. 
 §1630
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1630
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1630
 § 37
 § 1
 Art. 33