Taylor v. Burlington N. R.R. Holdings, Inc., 444 P.3d 606

Background

In 2007 Casey Taylor received a conditional job offer from BNSF contingent on medical screening; the company measured his BMI at 41.3 and treated BMI >40 as a trigger for further screening.
BNSF refused to hire Taylor pending costly medical testing he could not afford and told him company policy effectively barred hiring applicants with BMI >35 unless testing or weight loss occurred.
Taylor sued under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), alleging disparate treatment based on perceived obesity; the federal district court granted summary judgment for BNSF, adopting a rule requiring obesity to be caused by an underlying physiological disorder.
The Ninth Circuit certified to the Washington Supreme Court the question whether obesity can qualify as an "impairment" under RCW 49.60.040.
The Washington Supreme Court majority held obesity always qualifies as an "impairment" under RCW 49.60.040(7)(c)(i) because medical evidence recognizes obesity as a physiological disorder affecting one or more enumerated body systems.
The court emphasized that for disparate-treatment claims plaintiffs need only show the employer perceived an impairment; reasonable-accommodation claims require proof the employee actually has an impairment meeting the statute's additional criteria.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Taylor)	Defendant's Argument (BNSF)	Held
Whether obesity qualifies as an "impairment" under WLAD (RCW 49.60.040(7)(c)(i))	Obesity is a physiological disorder/condition recognized by medical authorities and thus fits the statutory definition.	Obesity is a trait/status (weight) and should not be treated as an impairment unless caused by a separate physiological disorder; federal ADA authority supports that narrower view.	The court held obesity always qualifies as an "impairment" under the plain language of RCW 49.60.040(7)(c)(i); WLAD is broader than the ADA.
Whether disparate-treatment plaintiffs must prove actual impairment	Not necessary; showing the employer perceived an impairment suffices in disparate-treatment claims.	N/A (BNSF focused on whether obesity can count as an impairment at all).	For disparate-treatment claims, a plaintiff need only show the employer perceived the statutory impairment.
Whether obesity must affect one of the listed body systems to qualify	Obesity inherently affects systems (cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, endocrine, lymphatic, respiratory) and therefore meets the listed-systems requirement.	Argued that some with high BMI may not have system impairment and that obesity should not be treated per se as an impairment.	The majority found medical consensus that obesity affects listed systems, so it satisfies the statutory element.
Whether federal ADA interpretations should constrain WLAD	WLAD is intentionally broader than the ADA; federal ADA precedent should not limit state protections.	Urged adoption of federal ADA cases that require underlying physiological disorder for obesity to be a disability.	Court declined to follow federal ADA interpretations; state statute and legislative history support broader protection.

Key Cases Cited

Pulcino v. Fed. Express Corp., 141 Wash.2d 629 (Wash. 2000) (reasonable-accommodation framework and discussion of medically cognizable conditions under state law)
McClarty v. Totem Elec., 157 Wash.2d 214 (Wash. 2006) (adopted ADA definition of disability for WLAD claims; later addressed by legislature)
Taylor v. Burlington N. R.R. Holdings, Inc., 904 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2018) (certified question to Washington Supreme Court whether obesity is an impairment under WLAD)
Clipse v. Commercial Driver Servs., Inc., 189 Wash. App. 776 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015) (applied broad statutory language to hold various physical conditions may qualify as disabilities)
Kumar v. Gate Gourmet, Inc., 180 Wash.2d 481 (Wash. 2014) (instructing liberal construction of WLAD protections)
State v. James-Buhl, 190 Wash.2d 470 (Wash. 2018) (clarifying de novo review for statutory interpretation)