COOK v. Rhode Island Department of Mental Health, Retardation, and Hospitals United States First Circuit Court of Appeals 10 F.2d 17 Plaintiff Cook, a woman who stood 5 feet 2 inches tall and (weighed over 320 pounds, applied for a vacant position as an institutional attendant. She had previously held this same position. The State of Rhode Island, the defendant, refused to hire her because of her obesity. She sued on the grounds that their discriminatory refusal to rehire her violated the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. The trial court found in her favor and the defendant appealed.

Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act provides that "[n]o otherwise qualified individual ... shall, solely by reason of her or his disability;... be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

Section 504 embraces not only those persons who are in fact disabled, but also those who bear the brunt of discrimination because prospective employers view them as disabled.

Section 504's perceived disability model can be satisfied whether or not a person actually has a physical or mental impairment. Also, regulations define the term "physical or mental impairment" broadly to include any physiological disorder or condition significantly affecting a major bodily system, e.g., musculoskeletal, respiratory, or cardiovascular.

The state asserts that "mutable" [changeable] conditions are not the sort of impairments that can find safe harbor in the lee of Section 504. It claims that morbid obesity is a mutable condition and that, therefore, one who suffers from it is not handicapped within the meaning of the federal law because she can simply lose weight and rid herself of any concomitant disability.

The jury had before it credible evidence that metabolic dysfunction, which leads to weight gain in the morbidly obese, lingers even after weight loss. Given this evidence, the jury reasonably could have found that, though people afflicted with morbid obesity can treat the manifestations of metabolic dysfunction by fasting or perennial under-eating, the physical impairment itselfa dysfunctional metabolismis permanent.

The state also asserts that, because morbid obesity is caused, or at least exacerbated, by voluntary conduct, it cannot constitute an impairment falling within the ambit of Section 504. But the statute contains no language suggesting that its protection is linked to how an individual became impaired, or whether an individual contributed to his or her impairment. On the contrary, the statute indisputably applies to numerous conditions that may be caused or exacerbated by voluntary conduct, such as alcoholism, AIDS, diabetes, cancer resulting from cigarette smoking, and heart disease resulting from excesses of various types.

The regulations define "major life activities" to include walking, breathing, working, and other manual tasks. In this case, the state refused to hire the applicant because it believed that her morbid obesity interfered with her ability to undertake physical activities, including walking, lifting, bending, stooping, and kneeling, to such an extent that she would be incapable of working as an attendant. On this basis alone, the jury plausibly could have found that the state viewed the applicant's suspected impairment as interfering with major life activities.

We think that detached jurors reasonably could have found that the state's pessimistic assessment of the applicant's capabilities demonstrated that it regarded her condition as substantially limiting a major life activitybeing able to work.

We next consider whether there was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude that the applicant was "otherwise qualified" to work as an attendant. An otherwise qualified person is one who is able to meet all of a program's requirements in spite of her handicap. Although an employer is not required to be unfailingly correct in assessing a person's qualification for a job, an employer cannot act solely on the basis of subjective beliefs. An unfounded assumption that applicant is unqualified for a particular job, even if arrived at in good faith, is not sufficient to forestall liability under Section 504. The state's position is that the applicant's morbid obesity presented such a risk to herself and the facility's residents that she was not otherwise qualified, or, in the alternative, that it was reasonable for the state to believe that she was not otherwise qualified.

The state has not offered a hint of any non-weight-related reason for rejecting the plaintiffs application. On this record, there was considerable room for a jury to find that the state declined to hire the applicant "due solely to" her perceived handicap. In a society that all too often confuses "slim" with "beautiful" or "good," morbid obesity can present formidable barriers to employment.

Rhode Island now appeals that decision.

Pretend you are a juror on the Cook v Rhode Island case. Who would you vote in favor of in this case? Why? Is there additional information that may be necessary to know prior to making a decision? If so, what additional information would you want?