September 16, 2019

A federal appeals court has refused to revive an employee's suit accusing a past employer of illegally firing him because he was morbidly obese. The court stated that the plaintiff could not show that he was fired due to his weight, and in doing so failed to address the broader issue of whether obesity qualifies as a protected disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case is Valtierra v. Medtronic Inc., 2019 U.S. App. Lexis 24738.

Jose Valtierra weighed 300 lbs when he began working for Medtronic Inc. in 2004 as a facility maintenance technician. By 2014 his weight had increased to more than 370 lbs. In May 2014 Valtierra's supervisor noticed that he seemed to be having trouble walking and had begun using the elevator as opposed to the stairs. The supervisor became concerned about Valtierra's ability to do his job, and checked the records to make sure that his assignments had been completed. The supervisor discovered that, although Valtierra had left for vacation the day before, he had reported completion of 12 assignments that should have taken a very significant amount of time. Upon return from his vacation, the supervisor asked Valtierra about the assignments, and Valtierra admitted that he had not performed all the work, but that he intended to finish the work when he returned from vacation. Medtronic terminated his employment, citing falsification of records as the reasoning behind the termination. Valtierra filed suit on the basis that he had a disability under the ADA and his termination was unlawful discrimination under the act.

The District Court dismissed the case, and a unanimous three-judge appeals court panel. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission submitted an amicus brief on behalf of Valtierra which "argues morbid obesity is plainly physiological in its effects and that numerous federal agencies have categorized it as a disease". The court said, though, that it did not need to make a definitive stand on whether or not morbid obesity is a protected disability because whether or not he was obese, Valtierra would have to show a causal relationship between the impairment and his termination, and the court does not believe he showed that relationship. Since he was terminated for falsifying records, and there was no basis for concluding that he was terminated for any other reason, the court affirmed the lower courts ruling. In this case Medtronic had a legitimate business reason for terminating Valtierra's employment that did not relate to his obesity.

Editor's Note: Four other U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal have held that obesity can be considered a disability only if it's caused by an underlying psychological condition, including Richardson v. Chi. Transit Auth. 926 F. 3d 881 (7th Cir. 2019) where the 7th Circuit held that "without evidence that (the plaintiff's) extreme obesity was caused by a physiological disorder or condition, his obesity is not a physical impairment under the plain language of the EEOC regulation. In making that decision, the 7th Circuit depicted a two-prong test for demonstrating that the obesity falls under the ADA's protection. The plaintiff must demonstrate either: 1) that the extreme obesity is an actual impairment or 2) that the employer perceived the extreme obesity to be an impairment.

|

This premium content is locked for FC&S Coverage Interpretation Subscribers

Enjoy unlimited access to the trusted solution for successful interpretation and analyses of complex insurance policies.

  • Quality content from industry experts with over 60 years insurance experience, combined
  • Customizable alerts of changes in relevant policies and trends
  • Search and navigate Q&As to find answers to your specific questions
  • Filter by article, discussion, analysis and more to find the exact information you’re looking for
  • Continually updated to bring you the latest reports, trending topics, and coverage analysis