You May Think They Are Disabled But That Doesn't Mean You "Regarded" Them as Disabled

24 February 2014 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog

While the 2008 amendments to the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) made it easier for employees to state a claim that he or she was “regarded as” having a disability, a recent decision from a federal court highlights that even under the amended law, an employee must still establish that the employer actually regarded him or her as having a disability, and that the employer discriminated against the employee because of that perception, in order to state a valid claim.

In the recent case, an Alabama district court rejected an employee’s claim against her employer that provided hospice service to terminally ill patients. The employee, who sold accounts to physicians, claimed the company fired her in violation of the ADA on the basis of her disability, morbid obesity, or alternatively that she had been fired because she was “regarded as” morbidly obese. The employee claimed that in a meeting several weeks prior to her termination, her supervisor made a comment that she “wasn’t even going to discuss the weight issue” with the employee and that this comment meant the employer perceived her as disabled. The employee had no other no other evidence that the company regarded her as disabled, and she insisted that her weight imposed no limitations on her ability to perform her job or engage in everyday activities such as walking longer distances.

The court rejected her claims, observing that the employee’s own unequivocal statements defeated her claim that she was disabled for purposes of the ADA. The court further determined that there was no evidence that the company perceived or regarded her as disabled due to her weight. Being overweight is a physical characteristic, but it is not necessarily a disability (although some states, such as Michigan, may protect obesity as a protected characteristic). In other words, even though there was no doubt that the employee’s supervisor perceived her as overweight, there was nothing to suggest that the company regarded her weight as a limitation on her ability to perform her job, or that the decision to terminate her employment had anything to do with such a perception.

The recent decision reminds employers that employees raising claims that they were “regarded as” disabled must establish that the employer perceived them as having an actual impairment. Though this is a relatively low threshold, employees nevertheless cannot establish a “regarded as” disabled claim for purposes of the ADA by arguing the employer perceived the employee only as having an undesirable physical characteristic. Instead, they must show that the employer perceived the condition as an impairment. For example, a supervisor might observe that an employee who works as a computer programmer has an undesirable nervous tick. Only if that supervisor treats the employee differently because of the tick and that the nervous tick impaired the performance of the employee’s job would he be “regarded as” disabled. Employers should thus keep in mind that while the threshold proof of a “regarded as” disabled claim under the ADA remains threshold, the mere noting of an employee’s physical characteristics is not necessarily the same as regarding an employee as disabled. Nonetheless, as a matter of common sense, managers and supervisors should understand the importance of taking care when discussing physical attributes with any employee.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services