## Facts

- Mark Richardson worked as a Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) bus operator starting in 1993.
- By 2009, Richardson weighed about 566 pounds and had hypertension and sleep apnea.
- After missing work due to the flu, CTA’s medical provider required Richardson to control his blood pressure before returning; CTA placed him on Temporary Medical Disability status.
- When Richardson later sought to return with medical clearance, CTA required a special safety assessment because bus seats were not designed for drivers weighing over 400 pounds.
- Evaluators reported multiple safety and ergonomic concerns during the assessment, including difficulty operating pedals and steering, limited visibility, seat and space constraints, and balance and hygiene concerns.
- CTA recommended that Richardson not be permitted to drive buses, citing the assessment observations, manufacturer specifications, and the driver-compartment configuration.
- CTA offered to place Richardson back on disability to pursue weight loss, conditioned on a release of certain claims; he declined.
- CTA terminated Richardson in 2012.
- Richardson sued under the ADA, asserting discrimination based on extreme obesity and, alternatively, that CTA regarded him as disabled.

## Issues

1. Whether extreme obesity, without evidence of an underlying physiological disorder or condition, is a “physical impairment” that can qualify as an ADA disability.
2. Whether CTA “regarded” Richardson as having an ADA-qualifying impairment by taking adverse action based on his extreme obesity absent evidence CTA perceived a physiological cause.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for CTA.
- The court held that extreme obesity is not an ADA-recognized impairment unless it is caused by an underlying physiological disorder or condition.
- Because Richardson offered no evidence that his obesity resulted from such a disorder, he did not establish an actual ADA impairment.
- The court also rejected the regarded-as theory because Richardson did not show CTA perceived him as having a qualifying impairment; CTA’s actions reflected safety and equipment limitations rather than belief in a physiological disorder.
- Having found no qualifying impairment (actual or perceived), the court did not reach other ADA elements in depth.

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff claiming ADA protection based on obesity must show the obesity is the result of an underlying physiological disorder or condition; weight alone, even extreme weight, is not a physical impairment under the ADA’s regulatory definition.
- The ADAAA’s broader disability coverage does not eliminate the threshold requirement that the condition at issue be an actual or perceived “impairment” as defined by applicable regulations.
- Under the ADAAA’s regarded-as prong, a plaintiff must show adverse action because of an actual or perceived impairment; employer concern about job-related safety risks tied to weight is not, by itself, perception of a physiological disorder.

## Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit held that, without evidence tying extreme obesity to an underlying physiological disorder (or evidence the employer perceived such a disorder), an employee cannot proceed on either actual-disability or regarded-as ADA discrimination claims based solely on obesity-related adverse action.


Richardson v. Chi. Transit Auth., 926 F.3d 881 (7th Cir. 2019)