Richardson v. Chi. Transit Auth.
926 F.3d 881 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), obesity is considered a physical impairment only if it is the result of an underlying physiological disorder or condition. For a 'regarded as' disabled claim to succeed, the plaintiff must show the employer perceived the obesity as stemming from such a disorder or condition.
Facts:
- Mark Richardson worked as a full-time bus operator for the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) from 1999 to 2012.
- By 2009, Richardson weighed 566 pounds, which qualified as 'extreme' obesity, and he also suffered from hypertension and sleep apnea.
- In February 2010, Richardson attempted to return to work from a leave of absence, but CTA's medical provider found him unfit due to his weight (over 400 pounds) and uncontrolled hypertension.
- CTA placed Richardson on Temporary Medical Disability status.
- In September 2010, CTA required Richardson to complete a 'special assessment' driving test because his weight exceeded the 400-pound limit for the bus seats.
- During the assessment, instructors noted several safety concerns related to Richardson's size, including his inability to make hand-over-hand turns, cross-pedaling, and his body hanging off the driver's seat.
- Based on the assessment, CTA management concluded it was unsafe for Richardson to operate any CTA bus.
- Richardson did not present any evidence that his extreme obesity was caused by an underlying physiological disorder or condition before his employment was terminated in February 2012.
Procedural Posture:
- Mark Richardson filed a complaint against the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleging disability discrimination under the ADA.
- The district court denied CTA's motion to dismiss.
- Following discovery, both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The district court granted CTA's motion for summary judgment and denied Richardson's motion, holding that obesity qualifies as a disability only if caused by an underlying physiological disorder, which Richardson failed to show.
- The district court entered judgment for CTA and subsequently taxed $2,067.26 in costs against Richardson.
- Richardson (appellant) appealed both the summary judgment ruling and the award of costs to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does extreme obesity qualify as a physical impairment under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) if the claimant does not provide evidence that it is caused by an underlying physiological disorder or condition?
Opinions:
Majority - Flaum, Circuit Judge.
No. Extreme obesity qualifies as a physical impairment under the ADA only if the plaintiff provides evidence that it is caused by an underlying physiological disorder or condition. The court held that the EEOC's regulation defining 'physical impairment' as a 'physiological disorder or condition' is controlling. While the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) broadened other aspects of the ADA, it did not alter this fundamental definition of impairment. The court reasoned that interpreting obesity as a per se impairment would be inconsistent with the regulatory text and would improperly expand the ADA to cover physical characteristics outside the normal range, even without a physiological cause. For Richardson's 'regarded as' claim to succeed, he needed to show that CTA perceived his obesity as an impairment in this legal sense—i.e., stemming from a physiological disorder—not merely that CTA took adverse action based on the physical characteristic of his weight and its related safety concerns. As Richardson presented no evidence that his obesity had a physiological cause, nor that CTA perceived it as such, his claim fails.
Analysis:
This decision aligns the Seventh Circuit with the majority of federal circuits, solidifying the rule that obesity is not a per se disability under the ADA. The ruling establishes a significant evidentiary hurdle for plaintiffs, requiring them to produce medical evidence of a physiological cause for their obesity. It also clarifies the 'regarded as' prong post-ADAAA, emphasizing that an employer's adverse action based on the physical limitations of an employee's size does not, by itself, prove the employer regarded the employee as disabled; the perception must be of a legally defined 'impairment'. This precedent limits the scope of obesity-related discrimination claims and forces courts and litigants to focus on the medical cause of the condition rather than the condition itself.
