The Federal 8th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to recognize obesity as a covered disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). They did acknowledge, however, that obesity could be considered a disability if it is caused by an underlying physiological condition.
BNSF Railway maintained a policy preventing anyone with a Body Mass Index (BMI) of 40 or higher from obtaining employment. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (the CDC), a BMI between 25-30 is considered overweight and over 30 is obese. BNSF stoutly defended their policy as a legitimate means of screening out applicants likely to develop significant physical problems in the future.
After his conditional job offer, Melvin Morriss (5’10” and 285 pounds) reported for his post-offer medical examination and listed that he had no medical conditions or limitations. When the results of the exam reflected that he had a BMI of 40.9, BNSF withdrew their job offer.
Slim Pickings
Morriss sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), claiming alternatively that obesity is a disability and/or that BNSF perceived it as such. The trial court ruled heavily in favor of the employer and dismissed the case, leading Morriss to appeal to the 8th Circuit. Unfortunately for him, the court served up another helping of disappointment in ruling that in the absence of an underlying physiological condition, Morriss’ weight is merely a physical characteristic that is not considered to be an impairment under the ADA.
Morriss didn’t fare any better is his claim that BNSF regarded him as disabled. The court explained that nobody – not BNSF, the examining doctor or even Morriss himself – regarded him as having an impairment of any sort at the time of his application. Instead, he simply was someone with a BMI that was above the threshold of what the employer considered acceptable, and a decision not to hire someone whose unhealthy habits might lead to medical issues in the future does not violate the ADA.
Court Chews Out the EEOC
One particularly tasty tidbit in this case was the 8th Circuit’s rejection of the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEOC) Compliance Manual that takes the position that “obesity alone” could be an ADA-protected impairment. The court found no basis in the law for this statement and noted that it contradicted regulations that EEOC had issued earlier.
This is particularly noteworthy since courts typically side with administrative agencies when interpreting the laws that such agencies are authorized to enforce. In recent years, the EEOC has aggressively sought to expand the scope and application of the laws they oversee (e.g. Title VII, the ADEA and the ADA) so having the court temper their enthusiasm with a serving of reality may help curb EEOC’s appetite in the future.
Bottom Line
Given how much the scope of the ADA seemed to expand after the 2009 amendments, it is comforting to see a court limiting the law’s application in this regard. It gives us food for thought on how other physical characteristics or unhealthy life choices may be viewed in the future when employees claim that such characteristics or choices are actually protected disabilities.