disability

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Valtierra v. Medtronic concluded that morbid obesity, by itself, will not provide a basis for liability under the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA”) where a termination was admittedly due to a for cause firing.

In this case Valtierra was morbidly obese during the ten years he worked for Medtronic. His job was to maintain and repair Medtronic’s manufacturing equipment. However, he admittedly falsified the repair completion computer records for repairs that were not performed. Medtronic fired him.

Valtierra sued Medtronic, alleging that he was fired because of his purported disability – morbid obesity. Medtronic moved for summary judgment on the premise that morbid obesity is not a “disability” within the meaning of the ADA. Medtronic alternatively argued that, even if Valtierra’s obesity was a protected disability, it did not fire him because of his obesity, but, rather because of his admitted misconduct.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Medtronic, holding that Plaintiff’s obesity was not a protected disability as a matter of law. Plaintiff appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the ruling, but, on different grounds than the trial court. The Ninth Circuit held it need not decide whether Plaintiff’s obesity was a protected disability. Rather, regardless of whether Plaintiff’s obesity was a disability, there was no evidence that Medtronic terminated Valtierra because of his obesity. Medtronic had produced evidence that Plaintiff admitted falsifying his reports of completed work and that this is the only reason he was fired. The Ninth Circuit noted Valtierra had produced no evidence that Medtronic treated other similarly situated (but non-obese) employees differently.

The decision provides employees in states covered by the Ninth Circuit (including California) leeway to continue to argue that obesity is a protected disability under the ADA and/or applicable state law. It is very costly to litigate an employment discrimination case through summary judgment (and appeal) and the employer rarely can recover the attorneys’ fees and costs it incurs in such litigation.

If you operate a business with employees in California it is imperative that you have legal counsel involved in your hiring and firing decisions. If you fail to do so you run the risk of costly litigation with former employees over a litany of issues – wage, overtime and working conditions laws; workplace safety laws; meal and break period compliance; licensure; exempt vs. non-exempt employee characterization; employee vs. independent contractor characterization; compliance with Federal, State and local Employment laws; and anti-discrimination laws, such as the ADA, Unruh Civil Rights Act, Fair Employment and Housing Act and Labor Standards Enforcement laws.

The information presented is not intended to be, and does not constitute, “legal advice.” Because each situation varies, and only brief summary information is provided here, you should not use this information as a basis for action unless you have independently verified with your own counsel that it applies to your particular situation.

In Higgins-Williams v. Sutter Med. Found. (2015) 237 Cal.App. 78, Ms. Higgins-Williams worked as a clinical assistant in Sutter’s Shared Services Department and reported to her treating physician that she was stressed because of interactions at work with human resources and her manager. Her physician diagnosed Higgins-Williams with “adjustment disorder with anxiety,” and Sutter granted her a stress-related leave of absence of slightly more than 30 days. After her return she received a negative performance evaluation and had additional conflicts with her manager. She thus, sought a disability accommodation transfer to a different department and an additional leave of absence.

Following over a year of additional leaves of absence, Sutter terminated Higgins-Williams’ employment. Higgins-Williams sued alleging disability discrimination, wrongful termination and related claims.

The trial court granted Sutter’s motion for summary judgment, and the Court of Appeal affirmed on the ground that Higgins-Williams was not disabled. The court ruled that:

“an employee’s inability to work under a particular supervisor because of anxiety and stress related to the supervisor’s standard oversight of the employee’s job performance does not constitute a mental disability under FEHA.”

Since Higgins-Williams had not indicated to Sutter when or if she could return to work, her claim for violation of the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) was also dismissed.

The Higgins-Williams case is the first in California that permits the employer to look at the reason a leave request is made and addresses the pre-requisites an employee must meet to maintain an action under the FMLA and CFRA when the employee is not further accommodated or reinstated. As an employer it has become virtually essential that leave requests, requests for accommodations, reinstatement requests and employee terminations be considered carefully in order to make certain there are no laws violated.

Is Obesity A Disability?

Inability To Work With A Supervisor Is Not A “Disability”