Assignment:
Create a paper of 1,050 words in which you explain the following points:
• A case summary
• The court's ruling
• What this means for the organization in the case study and for businesses in general
• What legal precedence the ruling sets for most businesses
• The role the federal enforcement agency plays in ensuring the organization's compliance to regulation standards
You must Format your paper and citations consistent with APA guidelines.
Obesity and the ADA
The case,EEOCv.Watkins Motor Lines, Inc.,18 AD cases 641 (6th Cir. 2006), dealt with a man, Stephen Grindle, employed by the defendant company as a driver/dock worker, Grindle had been hired in August 1990. At that time, he weighed approximately 345 pounds. About 65 percent of his job involved dock work. That work included loading, unloading, and arranging freight. The job description stated that the work included "climbing, kneeling, bending, stooping, balancing, reaching, and repeated heavy lifting." Over the course of the next five years, Grindle's weight ranged from about 340 to 450 pounds. According to Grindle, he was unaware of any psychological or physiological reason that would explain his weight.
In November 1995, Grindle suffered a knee injury at work when a rung on a ladder he was climbing broke. Grindle returned to work the next day and worked 50 to 60 hours a week through December. However, in January he began a six-month leave of absence because of his knee injury. The company informed Grindle that he would be terminated if he was unable to return at the end of the six months. To return, he had to have a release from his physician and perhaps undergo a physical examination.
While on leave, Grindle's knee injury was treated by Dr. Zancan. At the end of the six months, Zancan gave Grindle a work release. However, the company would not accept it and return Grindle to work because the physician did not look at the job responsibilities before signing the release form. The company sent Zancan a list of Grindle's job responsibilities and a return to work form. However, Zancan never responded. The company ordered Grindle to see the industrial clinic physician, Dr. Lawrence. Lawrence found that Grindle had limited range of motion. Furthermore, he observed that Grindle could duck and squat but was short of breath after taking a few steps. Lawrence stated that the most notable fact emerging from his physical examination of Grindle was that Grindle weighed 405 pounds. Lawrence concluded that, even though Grindle met Department of Transportation standards for truck drivers, he could not safely perform his job duties. The company put Grindle on safety hold. This resulted in Grindle's termination because he was unable to return to work after his six-month leave.
Grindle believed that he was terminated because of his weight and filed a claim with the EEOC in September 1998. In October 2002, the EEOC filed a federal action in which it claimed that the company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by terminating Grindle. In February 2004, the company filed a motion for summary judgment. The district court granted the company's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that obesity not caused by a physiological reason was not an impairment under the ADA. Grindle appealed.
The EEOC acknowledged that merely being overweight did not satisfy the ADA's definition of an impairment. However, it argued that it could be an ADA impairment if an individual was overweight as a result of a physiological condition or morbid obesity no matter what the cause. Morbid obesity is defined as body weight that is more than 100 percent more than the norm. In this case, neither Grindle nor the EEOC argued that Grindle's weight resulted from a physiological condition. Rather, the argument proffered was that Grindle was morbidly obese and the cause of that condition did not matter because morbid obesity is beyond the range of what is normal. The Sixth Circuit disagreed and upheld the district court's finding that, while physiologically caused morbid obesity may be an impairment under the ADA, non-physiological morbid obesity is not. Therefore, Grindle's morbid obesity was not an ADA impairment.
Source: Adapted from Mary Kathryn Zachary, "Obesity & the ADA-the Reason Matters,"Super Vision, December 2006, pp. 23-27.