
Richardson v. Chicago Transit Authority
During
an examination of his fitness to return to work, a driver for the CTA was found
to be over the seat manufacturer’s maximum weight of 400 pounds. The CTA put
the driver on temporary medical disability and he remained on inactive status
for two years. When he did not submit the medical documentation required to
extend his status for another year, the CTA terminated his employment.
The
driver sued, alleging that the CTA violated the ADA by refusing to allow him to
return to work after it regarded him as being too obese to work as a bus
operator. The district court granted summary judgment for the CTA. The driver
appealed, but in June 2019, the Seventh Circuit upheld the district court’s
ruling. The Seventh Circuit concluded that it would be “directly contrary to
th[e] definition” of physical impairment to consider a physical characteristic,
such as weight, to be a physical impairment, absent evidence of an underlying
physiological condition. Because there was no evidence of a physiological
condition in this case, the driver’s ADA claim failed.
With
its ruling, the Seventh Circuit became the fourth circuit, along with the
Second, Sixth, and Eighth
(which covers MN) Circuits, to hold that obesity is not a protected disability
under the ADA unless it is the result of an underlying disorder or condition.
Freeman v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation
District
An
employee of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (the
“District”) had duties including transporting water samples across the plant
using District vehicles. A driver’s license, however, was not required in his
job description. During the employee’s one year at-will probationary period at
the District the employee was arrested for drunk driving. The arrest resulted
in his driver’s license being suspended for six months. The employee informed
the District and sought counseling for alcoholism. He also looked for
alternatives for transporting the water samples, including purchasing a bike
and a cooler, asking permission to use a go-cart, and asking the state for a permit
that would allow him to drive the District vehicle. The District, however, terminated
his employment for unsatisfactory performance.
The
employee sued alleging that he was terminated for his race and his alcoholism
in violation of Title VII and the ADA. He also alleged that the District failed
to accommodate his disability and that his termination was retaliation for him
seeking accommodations. The district court dismissed his complaint for failure
to state a claim. The district court concluded that the employee did not plead
that his alcoholism caused substantial limitations to major life activities or
that it caused his termination. The district court then held that his
retaliation and reasonable-accommodation claims failed because he requested
accommodations not for his alcoholism, but for his license suspension. For his
race discrimination claim, the court concluded that the employee failed to
plead that he was treated less favorably than at least one colleague who was not
African-American.
The
Seventh Circuit reversed the district court’s decision under the ADA, as well
as Title VII.
Regarding
the Title VII claim, the Seventh Circuit held that it was sufficient at the
early stage of the case for the employee to allege that the District terminated
his employment because of his race.
Regarding
the claims under the ADA, the Seventh Circuit concluded that the employee had
alleged that the District regarded the employee as an alcoholic because of his
suspended license, and that the District then concluded that his alcoholism
impaired his ability to work at a job that involves safely moving items across
a facility. The Seventh Circuit determined that a jury could conclude that doing
so is a major life activity. The Seventh Circuit accordingly held that his
allegations that he was fired due to his alcoholism and request to accommodate
that condition stated a claim under the ADA sufficient to survive a motion to
dismiss. The Seventh Circuit did note that an employer’s sincere reliance on an
employee’s driver’s license suspension may justify an adverse employment
action, but that the employee had sufficiently pleaded his allegations at this early
stage.
Takeaways
and Cautionary Advice
1) With
decisions from four Circuit Courts, it is becoming clear that obesity in and of
itself will not be considered a disability under the ADA. Nonetheless,
employers should be careful when responding to a request for accommodation by
an obese employee. In particular, the employer should determine if there is an
underlying physiological disorder or condition (for instance hypothyroidism)
that may cause the obesity. In addition, obese employees may suffer other
medical conditions that are covered by the ADA (for instance diabetes).
2) Employers
need to remember that alcoholism, unlike illegal drug use, is concerned a
disability under the ADA. As the Freeman case shows, it is important for
employers to remember that accommodations must be considered and evaluated
before making any decision to terminate an employee.
No comments:
Post a Comment