Former Verizon service technician sued Verizon under the ADA claiming that they failed to accommodate his disability, i.e. his obesity, and caused his constructive discharge because he was obese. The Federal district court in Maryland, in Hill v. Verizon Maryland, Inc., held that the plaintiff's obesity was not a "disability" as that term is defined under the ADA because there was no evidence that it was caused by an underlying physiological condition, and the Court further held that even his obesity was deemed a disability he was not a "person with a disability" because there was no evidence that his obesity substantially limited the plaintiff in performing one or more major life activities. The Court noted that while his obesity may have caused him to perform his normal activities a bit slower or to a lesser degree than the average person, that does not mean that he his "substantially limited" in performing those activities.
The Court also rejected the plaintiff's argument that Verizon had a record of him being disabled because Verizon had documented his weight and various limitations in his activities as a result of his weight, but there was no evidence that Verizon had a record of plaintiff being substantially limited in performing a major life activity because of a disability. Similarly, the Court rejected the plaintiff's argument that Verizon regarded him as disabled because they were aware of his obesity on the grounds that merely acknowledging a physical impairment is not sufficient. The employer must have regarded the plaintiff has having an impairment that substantially limited a major life activity.
A copy of the decision can be read here.
Please visit the Farrell & Gunderson website and contact Eric W. Gunderson if you would like additional information or guidance on disability and accommodation claims under the ADA.
The Court also rejected the plaintiff's argument that Verizon had a record of him being disabled because Verizon had documented his weight and various limitations in his activities as a result of his weight, but there was no evidence that Verizon had a record of plaintiff being substantially limited in performing a major life activity because of a disability. Similarly, the Court rejected the plaintiff's argument that Verizon regarded him as disabled because they were aware of his obesity on the grounds that merely acknowledging a physical impairment is not sufficient. The employer must have regarded the plaintiff has having an impairment that substantially limited a major life activity.
A copy of the decision can be read here.
Please visit the Farrell & Gunderson website and contact Eric W. Gunderson if you would like additional information or guidance on disability and accommodation claims under the ADA.
Posts
