Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—EEOC sues AT&T for discriminating against longtime services technician and others with obesity condition, (Jan 23, 2025)

By Brandi O. Brown, J.D.

The employer has been using weight limits that are more stringent than the actual limits for the equipment being used, the agency alleges.

In a new lawsuit, the EEOC alleges that BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC, doing business as AT&T, discriminated against a longtime employee because of his disability—obesity—resulting in his reassignment and termination. The employee had worked as a services technician for the employer since 1979.

Safe load limits policy instituted. According to the lawsuit, beginning in 2014 AT&T (BellSouth) has engaged in employment practices that violate the ADA by using an “equipment safe load limits” policy and by relying only on a table it began using in 2008 to determine the load limit for equipment by job position. The table, the agency alleges, does not accurately reflect applicable duty ratings (safe load limits) for each position. For example, the table indicates that services technicians use equipment with duty ratings of 300 pounds or more even though services technicians, such as the employee upon whom the lawsuit is based, use equipment with duty ratings of 350 pounds or more. Because the table does not accurately reflect the applicable duty ratings (safe load limits) for the equipment used or made available for each position, the EEOC alleges, the policy and the table impose weight limits for applicants and employees that are not job-related and consistent with business necessity.

Screening out those with obesity. In 2018, moreover, the employer began using a program guide that imposed a 275-pound limit for field employees, even though the guide also did not accurate reflect the applicable duty ratings for the equipment being used. Therefore, the weight limit used under that guide for applicants and employees also is not job-related and consistent with business necessity. A man of average height reaches a BMI of 40 (used to diagnose Class III obesity) at about 270 pounds and a woman of average height reaches that BMI at 230 pounds. The policy, program guide, and table, the agency alleges, thus have the effect of discriminating on the basis of Class III obesity and screening out or tending to screen out individuals who have Class III obesity.

Employee came within manufacturer’s limits. As for the complainant identified in the lawsuit, he was subjected to the 275-pound weight limit in 2016 after he was weighed by the employer and was found to weigh 356 pounds. He was involuntarily reassigned. Several months later he was re-weighed and although he weighed 318 pounds, which was within the applicable manufacturers’ duty ratings for the equipment available for use by service technicians, the employer refused to return him to his position as he still had not “lost down” to 275 pounds. Although he provided the employer documentation about the manufacturers’ duty ratings thereafter and continued to weigh in below the 350-pound mark, the employer refused to return him to his position and ultimately fired him in 2018.

The agency alleges that the employer’s policy is unlawful. Moreover, it alleges that it terminated and refused to accommodate the employee in violation of the ADA, and also subjected him to harassment and a hostile work environment because of his disability.

It seeks injunctive relief, compensatory damages on behalf of the employee and other aggrieved individuals, and punitive damages.

The lawsuit was filed in the Eastern District of Louisiana; the case is No. 2:25-cv-137.

Companies: Bellsouth Telecommunications, LLC; AT&T

News: LitigationNewsTrends AgencyNews DisabilityDiscrimination Discrimination