Obesity Alone Is Not a Disability Under the ADA: Eighth Circuit | Practical Law

Obesity Alone Is Not a Disability Under the ADA: Eighth Circuit | Practical Law

In Morriss v. BNSF Railway Company, the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that obesity alone, not caused by a physiological disorder, is not a disability giving rise to a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA).

Obesity Alone Is Not a Disability Under the ADA: Eighth Circuit

Practical Law Legal Update w-001-8726 (Approx. 5 pages)

Obesity Alone Is Not a Disability Under the ADA: Eighth Circuit

by Practical Law Labor & Employment
Published on 11 Apr 2016 • USA (National/Federal)
In Morriss v. BNSF Railway Company, the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that obesity alone, not caused by a physiological disorder, is not a disability giving rise to a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA).
On April 5, 2016, in Morriss v. BNSF Railway Company, the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that obesity not stemming from a physiological disorder is not a physical impairment giving rise to an Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) claim. The Eighth Circuit reached the same conclusion on this issue as other circuits, stating that the amendments enacted in the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) did not change the analysis of what is a physical impairment. ( (8th Cir. Apr. 5, 2016).)

Background

Melvin Morriss applied for a machinist position at BNSF and was immediately given a conditional offer of employment. As part of his application, Morriss:
  • Filled out a questionnaire indicating:
    • he weighed 270 pounds;
    • was pre-diabetic but not diabetic; and
    • his overall health was "good."
  • Submitted to two separate physical examinations conducted by BNSF's doctors showing he:
    • weighed over 280 pounds; and
    • had a body mass index (BMI) over 40.
BNSF had a policy for safety-related positions (including the machinist position) of not hiring new applicants with a BMI over 40. As a result, BNSF:
  • Revoked the conditional offer of employment.
  • Notified Morriss that he was not qualified for the position.
Morriss filed a lawsuit in US district court alleging violation of the ADA. The district court granted summary judgment to BNSF, finding that:
  • Morriss's obesity was not an actual disability because Morriss failed to show that his obesity was a physical impairment under the ADA.
  • BNSF did not regard Morriss as having a disability.
Morriss appealed, contending that his obesity is a physical impairment even absent evidence that his obesity stems from a physiological condition.

Outcome

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to BNSF, holding that:
  • Obesity not stemming from a physiological disorder is not a physical impairment and therefore not a disability giving rise to an ADA claim.
  • Morriss failed to show that BNSF:
    • perceived his obesity as an actual or perceived physical impairment; and
    • regarded him as having a physical impairment under the ADA.
The Eighth Circuit noted that:
  • Under the ADA an employee is "regarded as" having a physical impairment if the employee establishes that he was discriminated against because of an "actual or perceived" physical impairment, regardless of whether "the impairment limits or is perceived to limit a major life activity" (42 U.S.C. § 12102(3)(A)).
  • ADA regulations define physical impairment as "any physiological disorder or condition" that affects at least one major body system (29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(h)(1)).
  • EEOC interpretive guidance states that the term "impairment" does not include weight that is:
    • within the "normal" range; and
    • not the result of a physiological disorder.
    (29 C.F.R. Pt. 1630, App'x § 1630.2(h).)
  • Two circuit courts have held that for obesity to constitute a physical impairment and disability for ADA purposes, it must result from an underlying physiological disorder or condition (EEOC v. Watkins Motor Lines, Inc., 463 F.3d 436, 442-43 (6th Cir. 2006); Francis v. City of Meriden, 129 F.3d 281, 286 (2d Cir. 1997)).
  • The ADAAA:
    • instructed the EEOC to modify its regulations to alter the "substantially limits a major life activity" aspect of the ADA's disability definition; and
    • was not intended to change the definition of the term "physical impairment."
    (42 U.S.C. § 12102(4)(A); 29 C.F.R. Pt. 1630, App’x § 1630.2(j); App’x § 1630.2(i); App’x § 1630.2(h).)
  • Since the ADAAA did not alter the definition of physical impairment, the pre-ADAAA circuit court precedent holding that obesity by itself was not a physical impairment remained persuasive.
  • BNSF denied Morriss's employment application not because it identified a current health risk but because BNSF considered a BMI over 40 to indicate that an individual would or could develop future health problems.

Practical Implications

The Eighth Circuit's decision in Morriss appears to validate the holding of two other circuit courts that obesity alone is not a physical impairment giving rise to an ADA claim. According to the Eighth Circuit, the ADAAA (enacted after the Sixth and Second Circuit decisions) does not change the result. Unless an individual's obesity derives from an underlying physiological condition, it is unlikely that it will be found to constitute a physical impairment under the ADA.