Obesity Without Physiological Cause is Not a Disability
By Dean E. Westman
Kastner Westner & Wilkins LLC
The KWWLaborLaw.Communicator
Vol 7, No. 4 - Fall 2006
A recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit confirms that obesity, even morbid obesity, is not an impairment giving rise to Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA") protections unless it is the result of a "physiological condition." Ruling against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"), the Court upheld dismissal of the EEOC's suit against Watkins Motor Lines.
The remarkably long history of the case began with the termination of a driver/dock worker by the name of Stephen Grindle. Grindle was hired by Watkins Motor Lines in August 1990. About 65 percent of his job duties consisted of dock work, such as loading, unloading, and arranging freight. This required him to climb, kneel, bend, stoop, balance, reach and engage in repeated heavy lifting. At the time he was hired, Grindle weighed 345 pounds. Over the ensuing five years, Grindle's weight fluctuated between 340 and 450 pounds. There was no evidence of a physiological or psychological cause for Grindle's excessive weight.
After sustaining a work-related injury (Grindle was climbing on a ladder at the loading dock when a rung on the ladder broke and he injured his knee), Grindle remained off work on an injury leave of absence. The leave began in January of 1996. Grindle never returned to work from the injury leave. His doctor failed to provide a valid release to return to work, and another doctor who examined him concluded that he could not safely perform the requirements of his job. Watkins had a policy at time that any employee who remained on leave for more than 180 days would be terminated. In accordance with that policy, Watkins terminated Grindle when he failed to return to work within 180 days.
Claiming that he had been fired because of his weight, Grindle filed an EEOC charge on September 30, 1998.
The EEOC did not file suit against Watkins until October 30, 2002, more than four years later. The suit alleged that Grindle's termination was in violation of the ADA. In February of 2004, Watkins filed a motion for summary judgment. The District Court granted that motion, concluding that non-physiologically caused obesity is not an "impairment" under the ADA. Testing the District Court's determination, the EEOC appealed, contending that morbid obesity, i.e., a body weight more than 100% over the norm, was a protected disability, regardless of the cause.
The Sixth Circuit held that a physical characteristic must relate to a physiological disorder in order to qualify as an ADA impairment. Agreeing with the District Court's dismissal of the EEOC's suit, the Court noted that there was no showing that Grindle's obesity had a physiological cause. Although noting that its decision need not be consistent with Social Security regulations, the Court also pointed out that a 1999 amendment to the Social Security Administration regulations deleted "obesity" from the listing of stand-alone impairments.
Back to Home »
