Casey Taylor, a former Marine, had his job offer from BNSF Railway rescinded because his body mass index was 41.3, “severely obese.” (Photo: Shutterstock)
There are multiple federal and state regulations that carve out protections against discrimination for a variety of reasons–age, race, gender, etc.–but what about weight? If a person is obese but otherwise capable of doing the job, can an employer to refuse to hire them?
No, at least in Washington, where the state's Supreme Court has ruled hat obesity is covered by the Washington Law Against Discrimination, which offers protection for those with disabilities.
The Seattle Times reports that the ruling came in answer to a query from 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which asked that the court define the terms under which obesity is defined as an impairment. According to the justices, obesity “is recognized by the medical community as a 'physiological disorder, or condition.'”
“Because obesity qualifies as an impairment under the plain language of our statute, it is illegal for employers in Washington to refuse to hire qualified potential employees because the employer perceives them to be obese,” Justice Mary Fairhurst wrote for the majority.
The request for definition comes as the 9th Circuit considers the case of Casey Taylor, a former Marine who was initially offered a job conditionally by BNSF Railway. However, after a medical exam, Taylor was told his body mass index was 41.3, “severely obese,” and the company told him it was against policy to hire people whose body mass index topped 35.
To get the job, the company told Taylor, he'd have to “undergo several tests that he could not afford—including a sleep study, blood work and an exercise tolerance test—or his only hope for getting the job was to lose 10 percent [of] his weight and keep it off for six months,” according to the Times.
A federal judge to whom Taylor appealed dismissed the case, saying in his ruling that obesity isn't a disability under state law unless it's caused by a separate underlying physiological disorder. However, the state's law, according to seven of the justices on the Washington Supreme Court, is “broader” than the Americans with Disabilities Act “and we decline to use federal interpretations of the ADA to constrain the protections offered by the WLAD.”
The case is now on its way back to the 9th Circuit after the 7-2 decision at the state level.
Complete your profile to continue reading and get FREE access to BenefitsPRO, part of your ALM digital membership.
Your access to unlimited BenefitsPRO content isn’t changing.
Once you are an ALM digital member, you’ll receive:
- Breaking benefits news and analysis, on-site and via our newsletters and custom alerts
- Educational webcasts, white papers, and ebooks from industry thought leaders
- Critical converage of the property casualty insurance and financial advisory markets on our other ALM sites, PropertyCasualty360 and ThinkAdvisor
Already have an account? Sign In Now
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Marlene Satter
Marlene Y. Satter has worked in and written about the financial industry for decades.
