Opinion ID: 1364986
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Perception of Handicap or Disability

Text: Even if weight does not qualify as an actual handicap or disability within the meaning of the FEHA, plaintiff argues that one might still qualify as a handicapped individual if one is regarded as such. As previously noted, the regulation defines a handicapped individual as one who, inter alia, [i]s regarded as having such a physical handicap (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 7293.6, subd. (i)), and the current statute provides that physical disability includes, Being regarded as having or having had a disease, disorder, condition, cosmetic disfigurement, anatomical loss, or health impairment described in paragraph (1) or (2). (§ 12926, subd. (k)((3).) Plaintiff's argument is unavailing. As the language of the statute makes clear, it is not enough to show that an employer's decision is based on the perception that an applicant is disqualified by his or her weight. The applicant must be regarded as having or having had a condition described in paragraph (1) or (2), to wit, a physiological disease or disorder affecting one or more of the bodily systems. The regulation similarly requires that the applicant must be regarded as having  such a physical handicap. (Italics added.) In other words, the condition, as perceived by the employer, must still be in the nature of a physiological disorder within the meaning of the FEHA, even if it is not in fact disabling. (See Cook v. State of R.I., Dept. of MHRH, supra, 783 F. Supp. at p. 1575 [perception of applicant's weight as a handicapping condition does not render applicant handicapped within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act]; American Motors Corp. v. Labor & Industry (1984) 119 Wis.2d 706 [350 N.W.2d 120, 125] [perception of applicant's height as a disqualification does not make the individual disabled where stature is not a physical disability or impairment under the state's fair employment act].) (4) Applying the foregoing principles to the case at bar, we conclude that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination by demonstrating she fits within the class of handicapped or disabled persons protected by the FEHA. The record is devoid of any evidence that plaintiff's weight is the result of a physiological condition or disorder affecting one or more of the body systems. (§ 12926, subd. (k); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 7293.6, subd. (d).) Indeed, plaintiff alleged in her complaint and maintained at trial that despite her weight she is a healthy, fit individual. Thus, she demonstrated neither an actual nor a perceived handicap within the meaning of the FEHA. It follows that the trial court erred in denying Community Foods' motion for nonsuit, which was based squarely on plaintiff's failure to adduce any evidence, medical, competent or otherwise, to establish that [plaintiff's weight] is a physical or a perceived physical handicap. As previously discussed, the requirement that plaintiff establish a physiological basis for her alleged handicap was relatively settled at the time of trial. Furthermore, she was clearly on notice of the potential importance of such evidence through the motions of defendants. Having thus received a full and fair opportunity to prove her case, she is not entitled to a new trial. ( Eatwell v. Beck (1953) 41 Cal.2d 128, 135 [257 P.2d 643]; McCoy v. Hearst Corp. (1991) 227 Cal. App.3d 1657, 1661 [278 Cal. Rptr. 596]; Code Civ. Proc., § 657.) Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed.