|
|||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Morbid Obesity May Not Be Protected by ADA
A recent federal appeals court decision may give employers more leeway to fire employees when their obesity prevents them from doing their jobs. But, be cautious, experts say. There is much confusion surrounding weight discrimination.
There may be exceptions, but the U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that morbid obesity is generally not a disability and does not require a company to offer accommodations as set forth in the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case, EEOC vs. Watkins Motor Lines, involved Stephen Grindle, who was a driver and freight handler for the Lakeland, Fla.-based company. Grindle weighed about 400 pounds in November 1995, when he injured his knee on the job (a rung of a ladder he was climbing broke). After he took a 180-day leave of absence, the company's clinic doctor examined him and reported that he had a limited range of motion and that he was short of breath after a few steps. Because of these limitations, the doctor declared Grindle could not safely perform the requirements of his job. He was eventually terminated. In 1998, Grindle sued, claiming he was discharged because of his weight. In 2002, he registered his complaint with the EEOC, which filed an ADA action against Watkins. In 2004, the district court granted Watkins' motion for summary judgment, and Grindle appealed. This month, a three-judge panel in the 6th Circuit upheld the lower court's decision. In the opinion, Senior Judge Cornelia G. Kennedy wrote, "We hold that to constitute an ADA impairment, a person's obesity, even morbid obesity, must be the result of a physiological condition." Watson declined comment and the EEOC did not return a phone call seeking comment on the decision. HR executives should not assume this ruling means that, in most cases, morbid obesity is not protected by the ADA, says Jon Coppelman, senior vice president of Wellesley, Mass.-based Lynch, Ryan & Associates, a management-consulting firm specializing in workers' compensation. "It's important to note that this is just one federal court," he says. "It would take a ruling from the Supreme Court to have a definitive answer as to whether morbid obesity is covered by the ADA. At this point, it's just too soon to make that assumption." Coppleman says it's important, in cases like this, for companies to set the correct priorities. "Focus on the essential functions of the job," he says. "Make sure any incumbents -- morbidly obese or not -- can do the work safely. If you're not sure, require the employee to undergo a 'fitness for duty' functional-capacity exam from a reputable occupational-health provider. "If the employee cannot do the job, you have two choices: trying to accommodate him, using the ADA process (the safe approach); or terminating him and taking your chances in court. It's important to note that even though Watkins Motor Lines eventually prevailed in this particular case, it took them 10 years and countless hours of work. I suspect an attempt to accommodate their obese worker back in 1995 would have been a lot quicker and a lot cheaper." Steven Sledzik, an employment lawyer and partner in the New York firm of Jones Garneau, also urges caution. "Obesity caused by a physical or physiological condition, such as diabetes, may be covered by the ADA. Despite the Watkins Motor Lines case, employers cannot necessarily reject all requests for accommodations by overweight employees. "Additionally, many states have passed statutes that prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of weight," Sledzik says. "Under state laws, some courts have recognized obesity as a disability. Some states have also passed 'lifestyle choices' laws that prohibit discrimination based upon after-work choices. "Courts might extend these laws to lifestyle choices that contribute to obesity. Given the problem of obesity in our country, employers will still need to be ready for requests for accommodations by overweight employees and be prepared to deal with them," he says. "The 6th Circuit decision adds to the confusion employers face in understanding their responsibilities regarding weight-based discrimination," says Sondra Solovay, a diversity trainer and an attorney in private practice in San Francisco. She directs the Fat Legal Advocacy, Rights and Education Project and teaches at New College of California School of Law. Solovay is also the author of Tipping the Scales of Justice: Fighting Weight-Based Discrimination. "An employer in this jurisdiction cannot tell whether the fat person that they refuse to hire is large for "protected" reasons or other reasons -- perhaps a side-effect of common prescription medicines, for example. The fat person herself may not know the answer prior to litigation." Solovay says the ruling "shows a profound lack of understanding of the physical issues and social prejudices faced by people Mr. Grindle's size" and runs counter to the clear intent of disability law. "Decided in a vacuum without input from community groups, it is likely to be overturned," she says.
September 26, 2006 Copyright 2006© LRP Publications |
||||||
Print
Email
Write to the Editor
Reprints
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
© Copyright 2010 LRP Publications. All rights reserved.
|
||||