Sponsored by Lane Powell

The law weighs in on obesity

| Print |  Email
Wednesday, February 01, 2006


John McDuffy, a Portland commercial truck driver weighing more than 500 pounds, was suspended without pay after he complained about the size of his truck. The court this past October agreed with McDuffy that this constituted disability discrimination and awarded him lost wages and a monetary sum for emotional distress. Having won the employment discrimination suit, McDuffy also is entitled to his attorney fees.

Oregon law states that when otherwise qualified people are disabled, employers may not (a) refuse to hire, employ or promote them; (b) bar or discharge them from employment; or (c) discriminate against them in compensation or in terms, conditions or privileges of employment. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) contains the same prohibitions.

During McDuffy’s trial, a video of a fi tness-for-duty examination clearly demonstrated his weight did not keep him from performing his duties as a truck driver. Michael Ross, McDuffy’s lawyer, noted the jury seemed most concerned by the fact that there was no reason to suspend McDuffy. After McDuffy complained about the size of the cab of a recently assigned truck, a supervisor e-mailed the human resources department that a bigger truck had been assigned, saying “things seem to be fi ne now.”

No performance problem, medical issue or safety incident prompted the suspension. As McDuffy stated, “I’d always done my job.”

The lesson for employers, supervisors and human resources managers is this: Focus on performance, on doing the job. Don’t make assumptions about the problems an employee may have because of a medical condition; evaluate what the employee is currently doing, just as you would for any other (nonobese, nondisabled) employee.

This also is true for hiring decisions. A 1990 Bureau of Labor and Industries final order found that an Oregon correctional institution employer violated the law by refusing to hire an obese corrections offi cer because the doctor performing the pre-employment medical exam noted an unhealthy heart rate and suggested the individual should lose weight. A closer evaluation by the bureau indicated the applicant would have been capable of performing the job but was not hired because of a perception that his size would impair his ability to perform the functions of the position.

On the other hand, an employer is not required to ignore a serious health condition that the employer reasonably believes may cause a direct threat to others, or to the employee. The classic example is the employee who operates heavy machinery and suffers from epilepsy not adequately controlled by medication. In that situation, an employer is not required to ignore the danger, although the employer should certainly talk to the employee about whether there could be a modifi cation to the position or even an alternate position that would allow the employee to work safely.

This was the defense raised in McDuffy’s case. The employer cited concern for McDuffy’s safety as the reason for suspending McDuffy and ordering him to obtain medical certifi cation of fi tness for duty. Significantly, the employer failed to ask the doctor whether, if a threat existed, some accommodation might be possible to minimize or eliminate that threat. Although the employer returned McDuffy to work after becoming aware there was no danger, the employer refused to pay the wages lost during the suspension.

McDuffy’s lawyer says the case would never have come to trial (saving the employer the costs of defense and damages) if the employer had agreed to pay McDuffy’s lost wages.

Ultimately, employers should keep in mind that disability laws were established to protect employees from arbitrary decisions that would keep them from earning a living. McDuffy wanted only to work and support his family, but was prevented from doing so because his employer apparently acted on assumptions and stereotypes rather than facts — a violation of both the letter and the spirit of the law.

— Shari Lane

Bureau of Labor and Industries, This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

 

 

More Articles

Reader Input: Energy Overload

June 2015
Wednesday, July 15, 2015

We asked readers to weigh in on the fossil fuel-green energy equation.


Read more...

Wildcards

Guest Blog
Tuesday, July 28, 2015
072815fergusonthumbBY JASON NORRIS

Uncertainty in Greece and China, along with potential interest rate hikes mean investors are looking at the market and nervously questioning where they should be invested.


Read more...

Photo Log: Waterfront Blues Festival

The Latest
Thursday, July 09, 2015
bluesfestthumbBY JASON E. KAPLAN | STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER

The sweltering weather didn't keep the crowds away. Although the numbers were down slightly from last year, the Oregon Food Bank raised $850,636 to fight hunger.  About 80,000 people attended despite temperatures in the upper 90s.


Read more...

Business partnerships: taming the three-headed monster

Contributed Blogs
Monday, July 06, 2015
070615-businessmarriagefail-thumbBY KATHERINE HEEKIN | OB GUEST COLUMNIST

Picking a business partner is not much different than choosing a spouse or life partner, and the business break-up can be as heart-wrenching and costly as divorce.


Read more...

Reader Input: Fair Play

May 2015
Wednesday, July 15, 2015

Former Governor John Kitzhaber's resignation in February prompted some soul searching in this state about ethical behavior in industry and government.


Read more...

Balancing Act

July/August 2015
Friday, July 10, 2015
BY DAN COOK

The Affordable Care Act has triggered a rush on health care plan redesign, a process fraught with hidden costs and consequences.


Read more...

10 Innovators in Rural Health

July/August 2015
Monday, July 13, 2015
BY AMY MILSHTEIN | PHOTOS BY JASON E. KAPLAN

Telemedicine, new partnerships and real estate diversification make health care more accessible in rural Oregon.


Read more...
Oregon Business magazinetitle-sponsored-links-02
SPONSORED LINKS