Morriss v. BNSF Railway Co., No. 14-3858 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff filed suit against BNSF, claiming that BNSF refused to hire him on account of his obesity and thereby discriminated against him in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101-12213, as amended by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA), Pub. L. No. 110-325, 122 Stat. 3553, and the Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act (NFEPA), Neb. Rev. Stat. 48-1101-1126. The district court granted summary judgment for BNSF and denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on his claims. The court concluded that, taken as a whole, the relevant statutory and regulatory language makes it clear that for obesity to qualify as a physical impairment - and thus a disability - under the ADA, it must result from an underlying physiological disorder or condition. This remains the standard even after enactment of the ADAAA, which did not affect the definition of physical impairment. Because plaintiff failed to produce evidence that his obesity was the result of an underlying physiological disorder or condition, the district court properly concluded that plaintiff did not have a physical impairment under the ADA. Finally, the district court properly rejected plaintiff's argument that BNSF perceived him as having a physical impairment. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Wollman, Author, with Bright and Loken, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Employment Discrimination. Taken as a whole, the relevant statutory and regulatory language makes it clear that for obesity to qualify as a physical impairment - and thus a disability - under the ADA, it must result from an underlying physiological disorder or condition; this remained the standard even after the enactment of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, which did not affect the definition of physical impairment; because plaintiff failed to produce evidence that his obesity was the result of an underlying physiological disorder or condition, the district court properly concluded he did not have a physical impairment under the ADA; plaintiff failed to produce evidence that defendant perceived his obesity to be an existing physical impairment.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.