Opinion ID: 1364986
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Weight as a Physical Handicap or Disability

Text: (2a) The case law specifically addressing claims, brought under FEHA, of handicap discrimination on the basis of weight is minimal but instructive. [11] A succinct analysis is set forth in Hegwer v. Board of Civil Service Comrs. (1992) 5 Cal. App.4th 1011 [7 Cal. Rptr.2d 389]. (3)(See fn. 12.) There, a paramedic suspended for failure to maintain required levels of fitness and body weight accused her employer, the Los Angeles City Fire Department, of handicap discrimination under the FEHA. The plaintiff claimed to suffer from a thyroid condition which contributed to her obesity. [12] Acknowledging that a person is considered handicapped under California law if he or she suffers from a physiological disorder affecting the endocrine system, which includes the thyroid (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, div. 4, § 7293.6, subd. (d)), the court nevertheless concluded that the department's standards were based upon a `bona fide occupational qualification.' (Gov. Code, § 12940) and therefore upheld the department's disciplinary action. (5 Cal. App.4th at pp. 1024-1025.) McMillen v. Civil Service Com. (1992) 6 Cal. App.4th 125 [8 Cal. Rptr.2d 548] is similar, although there the plaintiff, an ambulance driver for a city fire department, did not allege that his failure to maintain body weight standards was caused by any physiological disorder. Assuming, without analysis, that plaintiff's obesity nevertheless qualified as a physical handicap, the court concluded that, as in Hegwer v. Board of Civil Service Comrs., supra, 5 Cal. App.4th 1011, the department's weight standards were bona fide occupational qualifications. ( McMillen v. Civil Service Com., supra, at pp. 130-131.) [13] Several decisions dealing with weight as a physical handicap under the federal Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.) are also pertinent. (2b) As noted earlier, the current definition of disability in section 12926, subdivision (k), and the interpretive regulation in the California Code of Regulations (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 7293.6), are both modeled on the definitions in the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. § 706(8)(B); 45 C.F.R. § 84.3(j)(2)(i)) and the ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12102; 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2). Thus, interpretations of federal law may be particularly useful to guide the construction of this provision of California's antidiscrimination act. ( American Civil Liberties Union Foundation v. Deukmejian (1982) 32 Cal.3d 440, 449 [186 Cal. Rptr. 235, 651 P.2d 822]; Kaplan's Fruit & Produce Co. v. Superior Court (1979) 26 Cal.3d 60, 65 [160 Cal. Rptr. 745 [603 P.2d 1341].) Two decisions under the Rehabilitation Act are particularly noteworthy. In Tudyman v. United Airlines (C.D.Cal. 1984) 608 F. Supp. 739, a male applicant for a position as a flight attendant was rejected because he exceeded the airline's body weight guidelines. He sued, claiming that he had been denied employment on the basis of a handicap under the Rehabilitation Act. His weight was apparently the result of extensive body building, resulting in a low percentage of body fat and a high percentage of muscle. ( Id. at p. 741.) The court granted summary judgment for the airline, observing that the applicant's condition was not the result of a physiological disorder affecting one or more of the body's systems, e.g, the result of a glandular problem, but rather was self-imposed and voluntary. ( Id. at p. 746.) Accordingly, he failed to meet the definition of a handicapped individual under the federal statute. Cook v. State of R.I., Dept. of MHRH (D.R.I. 1992) 783 F. Supp. 1569 also addressed the question whether obesity not caused or accompanied by other physiological disorders constitutes a handicap within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act. The claimant was refused employment by a state agency when she failed to comply with a requirement that she reduce her weight to something less than three hundred pounds. ( Id. at p. 1571.) She asserted that the agency's action amounted to discrimination under the federal act. The court concluded otherwise. To constitute a physiological disorder qualifying as a handicap, the court observed, the claimant was required to adduce evidence of some related physiological disorder (e.g., heart disease or diabetes) or some medical evidence that the claimant's obesity itself is caused by systemic or metabolic factors.... ( Id. at p. 1573.) As the court explained: Thus, to the extent that obesity, or Cook's form of obesity, is caused by systemic or metabolic factors and constitutes an immutable condition that she is powerless to control, it may be a physiological disorder qualifying as a handicap. [Citations.] Conversely, to the extent that obesity is a transitory or self-imposed condition resulting from an individual's voluntary action or inaction, it would be neither a physiological disorder nor a handicap. ( Ibid. ) That obesity does not constitute a qualifying disability absent proof of physiological causation under federal law is also the view of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the administrative agency charged with interpreting and implementing the most recent and far-reaching federal antidiscrimination statute, the ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.). As noted earlier, the ADA's definition of disability is drawn from the Rehabilitation Act, which in turn was the model for California's long-standing regulation (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 7293.6) and current statute (§ 12926, subd. (k)). In explaining the meaning of disability under the ADA, the federal regulations observe: It is important to distinguish between conditions that are impairments and physical, psychological, environmental, cultural, and economic characteristics that are not impairments. (29 C.F.R. appen. § 1630.2(h) (1992).) Examples of the latter include such physical characteristics as height, weight, or muscle tone that are not the result of a physiological disorder. ( Ibid., italics added; see also 29 C.F.R. appen. § 1630.2(j) (1992) [Except in rare circumstances, obesity is not considered a disabling impairment.].) Thus, both judicial and administrative interpretations of the federal statutes on which our law is modeled uniformly reject the argument that weight unrelated to a physiological, systemic disorder constitutes a handicap or disability. These interpretations are also consistent with most other state court decisions on the subject. (See Shapiro, The Heavy Burden of Establishing Weight as a Handicap Under Anti-Discrimination Statutes (1991) 18 Western St.U.L.Rev. 565, 569 [Most courts have held that obesity by itself, without a related medical condition or other impairment, is not a handicap.]; Comment, Employment Discrimination Against Overweight Individuals: Should Obesity Be a Protected Classification?, supra, 30 Santa Clara L.Rev. 951, 961 [Most courts have examined whether or not obesity is a handicap and have found that it is not.].) And the recent decision of the California Court of Appeal in Hegwer v. Board of Civil Service Comrs., supra, 5 Cal. App.4th 1011, is in accord. We conclude, therefore, that an individual who asserts a violation of the FEHA on the basis of his or her weight must adduce evidence of a physiological, systemic basis for the condition.