Sign In
  • November 19, 2019

    Seventh Circuit: Extreme Obesity Alone Is Not a Disability

    The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that extreme obesity, by itself and alone, does not constitute a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Dean Dietrich discusses the issue, saying that employers must be careful about perceiving an individual who is extremely obese from being considered impaired or in some way unable to perform assigned duties.

    Dean R. Dietrich


    Nov, 20, 2019 -- We have finally received a decision about obesity from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which governs employers in the state of Wisconsin.

    In the decision in Richardson v. Chicago Transit Authority,1 the Federal Court of Appeals held that extreme obesity, by itself and alone, does not constitute a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

    We do not have a clear decision from the Equal Rights Division (ERD) on this topic, so hopefully the ERD will follow the same reasoning as the Court of Appeals.2 This is important, because Wisconsin is high on the list of states with a large population of obese residents – 32 percent of Wisconsin residents qualify as obese.

    The Decision

    The decision holds that an individual suffering from extreme obesity – that is, significantly overweight for their height – does not constitute a disability for which ADA protections must be provided.

    Employers must be careful, however, because there are two circumstances where the decision could be different:

    • instances where the obesity is the consequence of a physiological disorder or impairment; or

    • situations where the employer perceives the employee to be disabled because of a health condition of extreme obesity.

    Under either of these scenarios, the employee may be afforded protection from discrimination.

    Future Impairment

    In another recent Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision, the court held that an employer did not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act when it had concerns about a future impairment that could be experienced by a candidate suffering from obesity.3

    Dean R. Dietrich Dean R. Dietrich, Marquette 1977, is a shareholder with Dietrich VanderWaal, S.C. in Wausau, practicing in the areas of employment, labor relation, school law, ethics, and professional responsibility for more than 40 years.

    The court held that the employer did not discriminate when it refused to consider an applicant suffering from extreme obesity for a safety-sensitive position that included the operation of heavy equipment. The court held that the employer did not regard the candidate as disabled because the candidate did not “have” an impairment at the time, although concern was expressed about a future impairment.

    Other federal and state supreme courts have looked at this issue and provided different guidance.

    For example, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Valtierra v. Medtronic, Inc.4 failed to reach a conclusion whether obesity (standing alone) is an actionable “impairment” under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled similarly to the Seventh Circuit, by holding that obesity cannot constitute a disability unless the obesity is caused by an underlying physiological condition. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the plaintiff had not shown a causal relationship between his obesity and his termination from employment.

    On the opposite side of the spectrum, the Supreme Court for the State of Washington held that obesity is always an impairment under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, and did not require a showing that the obesity is related to some other medical condition.5

    The Washington State Supreme Court did not define obesity, but relied upon a definition of disability. Disability under the Washington law is defined as the presence of a sensory, mental, or physical impairment, regardless whether it limits life activities, that either is medically recognizable or diagnosable, exists as a record or history, or is perceived to exist, whether in fact it exists in actuality.

    The court held that obesity is always an impairment because obesity is both a condition and a disorder affecting various bodily systems. The court did distinguish situations where simply being overweight would not constitute a disability as compared to situations where an individual would be medically classified as suffering from obesity. The court relied upon a 2013 pronouncement by the American Medical Association that defined obesity as a medical condition.

    Perception Is Important

    Employers need to be very careful about perceiving an individual who is extremely obese from being considered impaired or in some way unable to perform assigned duties.

    While the employer, under the recent Seventh Circuit opinion, would appear to have the right to determine that the employee cannot perform the regular duties of their position, there is always the concern that the employer is thereby perceiving the employee to be disabled.

    In order to avoid that perception, the employer must make a reasonable and fact-based analysis of the ability of the employee to perform their regular duties even with the challenges of an extreme weight condition.

    This article was originally published on the State Bar of Wisconsin’s Labor & Employment Law Section Blog. Visit the State Bar sections or the Labor & Employment Law Section web pages to learn more about the benefits of section membership.


    1Richardson v. Chicago Transit Authority, No. 17-3508 & 18-2199) (Seventh Cir. June 12, 2019).

    2 The LIRC has held in Elmhurst v. School District of Neillsville (ERD Case No. CR 200500684) that an “’overweight condition’ cannot be considered a disability where there is no indication of glandular or other physiological disorder and the complainant’s weight was totally within the complainant’s control. Plizka v. A.O. Smith (DILHR Comm., 08/19/75).”

    3Shell v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Ry. Co., No. 19-1030 (Seventh Cir. Oct. 29, 2019).

    4Valtierra v. Medtronic, Inc. (926 F. 3rd 881, 2019).

    5Casey Taylor v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company (2019 WL 3023161, Wash., July 11, 2019).

    Need help? Want to update your email address?
    Contact Customer Service, (800) 728-7788

    Labor & Employment Law Section Blog is published by the State Bar of Wisconsin; blog posts are written by section members. To contribute to this blog, contact Andrea Farrell and review Author Submission Guidelines. Learn more about the Labor & Employment Law Section or become a member.

    Disclaimer: Views presented in blog posts are those of the blog post authors, not necessarily those of the Section or the State Bar of Wisconsin. Due to the rapidly changing nature of law and our reliance on information provided by outside sources, the State Bar of Wisconsin makes no warranty or guarantee concerning the accuracy or completeness of this content.

    © 2023 State Bar of Wisconsin, P.O. Box 7158, Madison, WI 53707-7158.

    State Bar of Wisconsin Logo

Join the conversation! Log in to leave a comment.

News & Pubs Search

Format: MM/DD/YYYY