Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
MTZ-Fachkongress

Antriebe und Energiesysteme von morgen


Austausch von Automobil- und Energiewirtschaft

Am 14./15. Mai geht es in Chemnitz um die Mobilitätswende durch Elektro- und Wasserstofffahrzeuge.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal
Erschienen in: Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 1/2019

07.01.2019

One Size Does Not Fit All: Accommodating Obesity-Related Disabilities in the Workplace

verfasst von: Mark V. Roehling, Mevan Jayasinghe

Erschienen in: Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal | Ausgabe 1/2019

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Several factors are combining to make it increasingly important that employers recognize their obligation to accommodate job applicants and employees with obesity-related disabilities, and respond effectively to requests for such accommodations when they arise. This article provides analysis and guidance that is intended to assist employers and practitioners in anticipating and responding to requests for obesity-related workplace accommodations. It is based on a review and analysis of all identified U.S. judicial decisions involving obesity-related workplace accommodations that were either voluntarily provided or disputed by an employer. The results of that review and analysis are summarized in a table by the type of accommodation, job, and court ruling (when the accommodation was not voluntarily provided). The table provides a list of potential obesity-related accommodations that is both more comprehensive and more specific than any list previously published in the legal, behavioral sciences, or health literatures. Key legal issues are identified and discussed, and practical guidance is provided. Although the focus is U.S. law, the guidance provided has relevance to employers and practitioners in the European Union, and those countries whose laws recognize that obesity may involve a legally protected disability that entitles an individual to reasonable accommodation in at least some circumstances.
Nächster Artikel Mentally Ill Employees’ Quest for Justice in Litigation: Procedural and Distributive

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Fußnoten
1
The ADAAA amended the ADA to explicitly provide that employers need not provide reasonable accommodation to individuals who are covered by the ADA only as a result of being “regarded as disabled.” Also, although in theory individuals covered by the ADA under the “record of disability’ prong might be entitled to an accommodation, a review of failure to accommodate cases involving obesity-related disabilities did not identify any reported cases in which a plaintiff claimed a right to an accommodation based on having a record of disability.
 
Literatur
Anderson, C. L. (2013). Unification of standards in discrimination law: The conundrum of causation and reasonable accommodation under the ADA. Mississippi Law Journal, 82, 67–126.
Andrew v. Racing Corp. of West Virginia, 2013 W. Va. LEXIS 781 (Sup. Ct. W. Va. 2013).
Anguilo v. United States or America, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83145 (N.D. ILL. 2012).
Barajas v. County of Los Angeles, Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2337 (2nd App. D. Ca. 2008).
Barboza v. Greater Media Newspapers, et al., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55716, 10 (D. NJ 2008).
Barnes v. City of Coon Rapids, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37139 (D. Mn. 2009).
Bass v. UPMC Horizon, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13683 (W.D. Pa. 2013).
Beem v. Providence Health & Service, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118428 (E.D. Wa. 2011).
Befort, S. F. (2013). An empirical examination of case outcomes under the ADA Amendments Act. Washington & Lee Law Review, 70, 2027–2071.
Bevins, B. (2003). Employability of individuals with varying disabilities and costs of needed workplace accommodations, East Tennessee State University, ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing.
Biagas v. District of Columbia, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5437 (D.C. 2010).
Brown v. BKW Drywall Supply, Inc., 305 F. Supp. 2d 814 (S.D. Ohio 2004).
Brownwood v. Wells Trucking, LLC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135005 (Co. 2017).
Bucklew v. Wal-Mart Stores, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85172 (D. S.C. 2012).
Budzdan v. DuPage County Regional Office of Education, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5094 (N.D. Ill. 2013).
Carreras v. Sajo, Garcia & Partners, 596 F.3d 25, at 32 (1st Cir. 2010).
Chiarello v. South Jersey Transp. Auth., 2016 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1501 (2016).
Cook v. Rhode Island, Dep’t of Mental Health, Retardation, & Hosps., 10 F.3d 17 (1st Cir. 1993).
Cornell v. Berkeley Tennis Club, 2017 Cal. App. LEXIS 1147 (Ca. 2017).
Cristia v. Red Door Spa, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22165 (N.D. Ill. 2008).
EEOC v. Resources for Human Development, 827 F. Supp. 2d. 688, 695 (E.D. La. 2011).
EEOC v. St. Joseph’s Hospital, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19272 (M.D. Fla. 2015).
Glasson v. Res-Care California, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13666 (E.D. Ca. 2006).
Greenberg v. Bellsouth Telecomm., 498 F.3d 1258 (11th Cir. 2007).
Gumina v. Rite Aid, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97899 (M.D. Pa. 2015).
Hallstrom v. Barker, 2004 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 8185 (2nd App. D. 2004).
Hayes v. Wal-mart, 781 F. Supp. 2d 1080 (D. Or. 2011).
Hill v. Verizon, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59786 (D. Md. 2009).
Honey v. County of Rockland, 200 F. Supp. 2d 311 (S.D. NY 2002).
Hopkins v. General Motors, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13515 (E.D. Mich. 2007).
Kaltoft v. Municipality of Billund, Case C- 354/13, EU: C: 2014: 2463.
Keel v. City of Hopkinsville, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 35777 (6th Cir. 1991).
Lamb v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan Northwest, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140982 (D. Or. 2015).
Laramee v. The Jewish Guild for the Blind, 72 F. Supp. 2d 357 (S.D. NY 1999).
Lee, M., Ata, R. N., & Brannick, M. T. (2014). Malleability of weight-biased attitudes and beliefs: A meta-analysis of weight bias reduction interventions. Body Image, 11(3), 251–259.CrossRef
Lescoe v. Penn. Dept. of Corrections, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34325 (M.D. Pa., 2011), aff’d
Lescoe v. Penn. Dept. of Corrections, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 3022 (3rd Cir. 2012).
Magnant v. Panelmatic Texas, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59261 (S.D. Tx. 2006).
McDonald v. State of Kansas, 880 F. Supp. 1416 (D. Kan. 1995).
McKibben v. Hamilton County, Ohio, 215 F.3d 1327 (6th Cir. 2000).
Michaels v. Continental Realty, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109172 (D. Md. 2011).
Miller v. Hartzell Propeller, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23807 (S.D. Ohio 1997).
Monahan, C. A., Goldman, T. L., & Oswald, D. (2014). Establishing a physical impairment of weight under the ADA/ADAAA: Problems of bias in the legal system. ABA Journal of Labor & Employment Law, 29(3), 537–562.
Mont-Ros v. City of Miami, 111 F. Supp. 2d 1338 (S.D. Fla. 2000).
Morrow v. City of Jacksonville, 941 F. Supp. 816 (W.D. Ark. 1996).
Ni v. Rite Aid, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62531 (D. NJ 2010).
Powell v. Gentiva Health Services, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17709 (S.D. Ala. 2014).
Puhl, R. M., Suh, Y., & Li, X. (2016). Legislating for weight-based equality: National trends in public support for laws to prohibit weight discrimination. International Journal of Obesity, 40, 1320–1324.CrossRef
Roehling, M.V., Choi, M.G., & Roehling, P.V. (forthcoming). Weight discrimination in the workplace: Current knowledge and future research needs. Research in Human Resource Management, Information Age.
Sandor v. Delmont Brothers, 92 F. Supp. 3d 355 (W.D. Pa. 2015).
Scheerer v. Potter, 443 F.3d 916, 918 (7th Cir. 2006).
Schuler, R., Dowling, P., & De Cieri, H. (1993). An integrative framework of strategic international human resource management. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 1, 717–764.CrossRef
Shanks v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95502 (N.D. Ca. 2016).
Shinall, J. B. (2016). Distaste or disability? Evaluating the legal framework for protecting obese workers. Berkeley Journal of Employment & Labor Law, 37, 101–142.
Smallwood v. Witco Corporation, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18106 (S.D. NY 1995).
Sulima v. Tobyhanna Army Depo, 602 F.3d 177 (3rd Cir. 2010).
Target Stores v. Labor and Indus. Review Comm’n., 217 Wis. 2d 1; 576 N.W.2d 545 (Wis. Ct. App. 1998).
Taylor v. Burlington Northern Railroad Holdings, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19879, 24–25 (W.D. Wa. 2016).
Taylor v. Virtua Health, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45800 (D.N.J. 2007).
Toll v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23436 (N.D. Tx. 1998); aff’d Toll v. American Airlines, 161 F.3d 7 (5th Cir. 1998).
Triana, M., Jayasinghe, M., & Pieper, J. (2015). Perceived workplace racial discrimination and its correlates: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(4), 491–513.CrossRef
U.S. Airways v. Barnett, 535 U.S. 391 (2002).
Valderrama, H. K. (2010). Is the ADAAA a “quick fix” or are we out the frying pan and into the fire?: How requiring parties to participate in the interactive process can effect congressional intent under the ADAAA. Houston Law Review, 47, 175–214.
Valtierrra v. Medtronic Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXUS 15471 (D. Ax. 2017).
Webb v. Schwartz Creek Community Schools, 2001 Mich. App. LEXIS 742 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001).
Whaley v. Southwest Student Transportation, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9103 (N.D. Tx. 2002).
Wilkerson v. Shinseki, 606 F.3d 1256 (10th Cir. 2010).
Wilkes v. Nucor-Yamato Steel Co., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131241 (E.D. Ark. 2015).
Metadaten
Titel
One Size Does Not Fit All: Accommodating Obesity-Related Disabilities in the Workplace
verfasst von
Mark V. Roehling
Mevan Jayasinghe
Publikationsdatum
07.01.2019
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal / Ausgabe 1/2019
Print ISSN: 0892-7545
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-3378
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-018-9326-8

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2019

Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 1/2019 Zur Ausgabe

EditorialNotes

Introduction to “Independent Workers: Growth Trends, Categories, and Employee Relations Implications in the Emerging Gig Economy”

OriginalPaper

Academic Violence/Bullying: Application of Bandura’s Eight Moral Disengagement Strategies to Higher Education

OriginalPaper

Mentally Ill Employees’ Quest for Justice in Litigation: Procedural and Distributive

OriginalPaper

Independent Workers: Growth Trends, Categories, and Employee Relations Implications in the Emerging Gig Economy

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise