WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT: OBESITY ALWAYS CONSIDERED AN IMPAIRMENT FOR PURPOSES OF DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS

In Taylor v. Burlington Northern Railroad Holdings, Inc. (July 11, 2019), the Supreme Court of Washington asked the question whether obesity is considered an impairment protected from discrimination under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), the state law prohibiting workplace discrimination in the State of Washington.

In cases decided under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), it has generally been accepted that, while an individual with morbid obesity may be considered to be a disabled individual due to the impact of his/her condition upon other major life activities, obesity in and of itself is not considered a disabling condition.

In Taylor, however, the court disagreed and opted instead for a broader definition of “disability.” Noting that it utilizes a “broad and expansive definition” of the term “disability” under the WLAD, the court found that “obesity always qualifies as an impairment under the plain language of [the WLAD] because it is a ‘physiological disorder, or condition’ that affects many of the listed body systems.”

With this in mind, note that a potential plaintiff alleging disability discrimination under the WLAD need not prove that he or she actually has an impairment, i.e., is actually suffering from obesity. As the court recognized, “It is illegal for employers in Washington to refuse to hire qualified potential employees because the employer perceives them to be obese.”

So...how will this affect employment-based decisions moving forward?

First, it should be noted that this is a fairly limited decision which, for now, will only apply to cases brought under state law in Washington, which is generally considered to be a particularly plaintiff-friendly jurisdiction.

Obviously, the Taylor decision opens the door to a broader definition of disability as it applies to obesity. If a job applicant (or employee) believes that an adverse employment decision was made because of his/her weight, the individual may pursue a claim under the WLAD for disability discrimination. The mere fact that the individual does not suffer any negative health detriment as the result of an extreme weight condition will be largely irrelevant in such a case, as the mere fact that the employer considered the individual’s weight when making an employment decision would potentially open the door to liability. The ball would then by in the defendant’s court to show that a business-related reason existed for excluding the individual from the job because of his/her weight.

It is obviously rare for an individual to show up for a job interview (or otherwise) with a note from a doctor indicating that he or she is obese. As a practical matter, employees should be careful about making employment decisions based upon a perception that an individual’s weight would prevent that person from performing the physical requirements of a particular job. With that cautionary note in mind, however, it should be added that the Taylor case allows potential plaintiffs to bring claims on the basis of a suspicion that their weight somehow played a role in a decision made by their employer.

If you have questions about this Employment Law Alert or wish to discuss the impact of this decision upon your business, please do not hesitate to contact Maury Nicely at Evans Harrison Hackett PLLC, 423/648-7851 or mnicely@ehhlaw.com.