The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has filed a lawsuit against an organization for allegedly firing someone based on her obesity. According to the EEOC, this would be a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) since, according to them, obesity would be considered a disability. It should be noted that the EEOC has claimed in the past that obesity is a disability.
There has been a significant question regarding whether obesity is a disability under the ADA. A lot may depend on whether an individual is morbidly obese and therefore is substantially limited in performing major life activities, as opposed to someone who is just overweight.
After passage of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, which made it much easier to prove disabilities, there may be little question that obesity is in fact a disability.
A key question is what does it mean for a physical or mental condition to “substantially limit” a major life activity?
The United States Supreme Court in a case called Toyota Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky v. Williams, interpreted ?substantially limits? to mean ?prevents or severely restricts.” In other words, the Court interpreted the law properly by looking at the plain language of the statute.
Congress didn’t like this (among other things) and wanted to water down the requirements of the ADA. In the 2008 legislation, Congress expressly rejected the Court’s standard and included a vague provision in the bill indicating that “The term `substantially limits’ shall be interpreted consistently with
the findings and purposes of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.”
Courts will be struggling to come up with any coherent and consistent guidance on the meaning of the term because Congress failed to provide any clarity. Regardless, the definition of “substantially limits” is less stringent that it used to be.
Businesses should expect more ADA lawsuits and a greater need to reasonably accommodate individuals due to their “disabilities” as defined under the ADA. The ADA case law that had developed for nearly two decades is in some respects out the window as courts grapple with the new and poorly drafted ADA Amendments Act of 2008.
