65 N.Y.2d 213 (1985)

Under New York’s Human Rights Law, obesity can be considered a disability if it constitutes a medical impairment demonstrable by medically accepted clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques, even if the condition does not currently limit physical abilities.

Summary

Xerox Corporation refused to hire Catherine McDermott due to her obesity. The New York State Division of Human Rights found this to be unlawful discrimination based on disability. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that McDermott’s obesity constituted a disability under the Human Rights Law because it was a clinically diagnosed medical impairment, regardless of its present impact on her ability to perform job duties. The court emphasized the broad definition of disability under New York law and rejected Xerox’s argument that the condition needed to limit current abilities to qualify as a disability.

Facts

Catherine McDermott applied for a systems consultant position at Xerox in 1974 and received a conditional offer contingent on passing a medical examination. During the examination, she was found to be 5’6″ and 249 pounds. The examining physician noted her obesity and deemed her medically “not acceptable” based solely on her weight. Xerox’s Director of Health Services concurred, and the job offer was rescinded. McDermott’s obesity did not demonstrably impair her ability to perform tasks or functions.

Procedural History

McDermott filed a complaint with the State Division of Human Rights, alleging discriminatory employment practices based on disability. The Commissioner of Human Rights sustained the complaint. The Human Rights Appeal Board reversed, dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division reversed the Board, reinstating the Commissioner’s determination. Xerox appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether McDermott’s obesity constitutes a “disability” within the meaning of the New York Human Rights Law (Executive Law § 292 [21]), even if it does not currently prevent her from performing job-related activities.

Holding

Yes, because the New York Human Rights Law defines disability broadly to include medical impairments demonstrable by medically accepted clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques, and McDermott’s obesity was clinically diagnosed by Xerox’s own physician as an abnormality rendering her medically unsuitable.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals reasoned that the Human Rights Law covers a range of conditions, from those involving loss of bodily function to diagnosable medical anomalies that impair bodily integrity and may lead to future serious conditions. The court emphasized that New York’s definition of “disability” is broader than the typical disability statute. The court found the Commissioner reasonably concluded that McDermott’s clinically diagnosed obesity, deemed her medically unsuitable by Xerox’s physician, constituted an impairment and thus a disability. The court rejected Xerox’s argument that the statute should only apply to immutable disabilities, stating that the statute protects all persons with disabilities, not just those with untreatable conditions. The court stated: “Fairly read, the statute covers a range of conditions varying in degree from those involving the loss of a bodily function to those which are merely diagnosable medical anomalies which impair bodily integrity and thus may lead to more serious conditions in the future.”