When bringing an employment discrimination claim, an employee may assert causes of action under federal, state and municipal discrimination statutes.  In some instances, the state and municipal statutes may have a broader effect than the federal ones. 

In a recent decision, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York implied that obesity, alone, may constitute a disability prohibited by New York City’s municipal statute, the New York City Human Rights Law.

In Spiegel v. Schulmann, the plaintiff alleged that he had been terminated from his job as a martial arts instructor due to his obesity.  In making his claim, the plaintiff relied not on the federal Americans With Disabilities Act, but rather upon the broader New York City statute, which defines disability as “any physical, medical, mental or psychological impairment”, which, in turn, is defined as “an impairment of any system of the body; including, but not limited to: the neurological system; the musculoskeletal system; the special sense organs and respiratory organs, including, but not limited to, speech organs; the cardiovascular system; the reproductive system; the digestive and genito-urinary systems; the hemic and lymphatic systems; the immunological systems; the skin; and the endocrine system.”  

As the federal district court below had failed to address the issue of whether obesity, alone, constituted a disability under the New York City statute, the Second Circuit remanded the matter back to the district court for that determination.  Although the federal appellate court noted that no New York state appellate court had ever decided that specific issue, it highlighted that New York state courts have determined that the New York City statute is to be interpreted to fulfill its “uniquely broad and remedial purposes, which go beyond those of counterpart State or federal civil rights laws” and “meld the broadest vision of social justice with the strongest law enforcement deterrent”, implying that the definition of disability pursuant to the City statute should be given an expansive reading. 

Although the federal district court’s decision in Spiegel will interpret the New York City statute, it may have impact beyond New York as Philadelphia’s municipal statute has a similar definition of disability.

This newsletter is a publication of Nochumson P.C. and is intended for general information only. It should not be construed as legal advice with respect to any particular situation, and readers should not act upon information contained in this newsletter without first consulting an attorney. Copyright © 2009.