Is Obesity a Disability Under the Americans with Disabilities Act?

In a recent 7th Circuit Court of Appeals case, the court considered whether “extreme obesity” falls within the definition of a “disability” under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). After considering the plain language of the ADA and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) regulations and interpretative guidance, the court held that extreme obesity is not a disability under the ADA unless it is caused by an underlying physiological disorder or condition.

The case arose when the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) terminated a former bus operator named Richardson because his weight exceeded a manufacturer safety requirement for CTA buses. This did not automatically disqualify him for continued employment. Rather, he was given an assessment by CTA bus instructors who determined allowing Richardson to operate the bus at his current weight would be unsafe based on his performance. Further, Richardson was provided the opportunity to be placed on medical leave and work with CTA’s third-party medical providers to decrease his weight and potentially regain the ability to operate buses for the CTA. He refused, and after a year of inactivity, the CTA terminated his employment. Richardson then brought suit against the CTA under the ADA which prohibits discrimination against a qualified individual based on a disability. Based on the ADA definition of disability, Richardson claimed that the CTA “regarded him as having a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of his major life activities.” In this case, the physical impairment of extreme obesity. Therefore, in order for Richardson to meet his burden of proof, he was required to demonstrate either that he had an actual physical or mental impairment or that CTA perceived that he had one. The court determined that he could do neither.

The court based its analysis on the EEOC’s definition of impairment which states that an impairment is “any physiological disorder or condition . . . affecting one or more body systems”. Based on this definition, the court determined that without evidence that Richardson’s extreme obesity was caused by an underlying physiological disorder or condition, it is not a physical impairment. Richardson provided no evidence that could lead a reasonable jury to conclude that his extreme obesity was caused by an underlying physiological disorder or condition. Further, the available evidence could not lead a reasonable jury to conclude that CTA perceived Richardson’s obesity to be caused by an underlying physiological disorder or condition. All the evidence showed was that the CTA instructors perceived Richardson’s obesity to be a physical characteristic which made it unsafe for him to operate a bus. There was no evidence that the instructors or anyone else at the CTA perceived Richardson’s extreme obesity to be the result of an underlying physiological disorder or condition.

What does this mean for Indiana employers wanting to ensure their compliance with the ADA? It means that reasonable policies based on mere physical characteristics such as obesity should not subject employers to federal discrimination claims barring nonuniform application or failure to consider reasonable accommodations requests. More importantly, the 7th Circuit has given employers and human resource departments direction as to where to look when requirements under the ADA are less than objectively clear. The court made clear in its opinion that its holding was based on the persuasive authority of the EEOC regulations. These regulations are often more detailed than the statutory language itself, and may be a strong basis of authority within the 7th Circuit for ADA compliance by employers.