## Facts

- Melvin A. Morriss III applied for a BNSF machinist position classified as safety-sensitive; the offer was conditional on passing a medical review.
- Morriss reported he was 5'10" and 270 pounds, had been labeled “pre-diabetic” in the past but was not currently diabetic, and had no activity limitations.
- BNSF medical examinations recorded Morriss at 281–285 pounds, with a BMI of 40.4–40.9 (Class III obesity).
- Morriss’s physician records indicated no current physical impairments; weight-loss medication was not prescribed to treat health concerns.
- BNSF had a policy disqualifying new hires for safety-sensitive jobs if BMI was 40 or greater due to increased risk of future conditions (e.g., diabetes, sleep apnea, cardiovascular disease).
- BNSF revoked Morriss’s conditional job offer under the BMI policy, noting no current clinical evidence of the cited diseases; Morriss never began work.

## Issues

1. Whether obesity, without evidence of an underlying physiological disorder or condition, qualifies as a “physical impairment” (and thus a disability) under the ADA (as amended by the ADAAA) and Nebraska’s NFEPA.
2. Whether rescinding the offer based on a BMI ≥ 40 showed BNSF “regarded” Morriss as having a disability.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for BNSF.
- The court held obesity is a “physical impairment” under the ADA only if it results from an underlying physiological disorder or condition.
- Morriss failed to produce evidence linking his obesity to an underlying physiological disorder; therefore, he did not establish an actual disability.
- The court held BNSF did not “regard” Morriss as having an existing impairment; it acted based on perceived future health and safety risks associated with high BMI.
- The NFEPA claim failed for the same reasons because Nebraska disability analysis follows federal ADA guidance.

## Legal Principles

- A condition qualifies as an ADA “physical impairment” only if it is a physiological disorder or condition (or results from one); physical characteristics alone are not impairments.
- The ADAAA broadened aspects of disability coverage but did not change the regulatory definition of “physical impairment.”
- Obesity is not an ADA impairment absent evidence it is caused by an underlying physiological disorder or condition.
- “Regarded as” liability requires action because of an actual or perceived existing impairment; adverse action based solely on statistical risk of future conditions is insufficient.
- Where state disability law is interpreted consistently with the ADA, failure to establish an ADA impairment or perceived impairment defeats the state claim as well.

## Conclusion

The court upheld BNSF’s decision to revoke a conditional offer for a safety-sensitive job under a BMI-based policy, ruling that obesity alone is not an ADA impairment without an underlying physiological disorder and that acting on future-risk concerns does not establish “regarded as” disability discrimination.


Morriss v. BNSF Ry. Co., 817 F.3d 1104 (8th Cir. 2016)