Sometimes. Under the controlling California rule, weight is a disability under FEHA only when medical evidence shows it has a physiological cause and limits a major life activity. A large body size, standing alone, isn’t enough. But an employer moving for summary judgment carries the first burden, and Cornell v. Berkeley Tennis Club shows how easily that motion fails if the employer offers no evidence that the condition lacks a physiological cause. The defense is real, and it has to be built with evidence.
What is the California rule for weight and disability?
The rule comes from the Supreme Court of California’s decision in Cassista v. Community Foods (1993), as later applied in Cornell v. Berkeley Tennis Club (2017). The Court of Appeal in Cornell summarized Cassista‘s holding that “an individual who asserts a violation of the FEHA on the basis of his or her weight must adduce evidence of a physiological, systemic basis for the condition.”
The plaintiff in Cornell didn’t fight that rule. The opinion notes that she did “not dispute that ‘Cassista remains the controlling authority’” and that an element of her disability-based claims required proof “that her obesity has a physiological cause.”
That element connects to FEHA’s statutory definition of physical disability in Government Code section 12926, which covers a physiological disease, disorder, or condition that affects a body system and limits a major life activity. FEHA’s “limits” standard is broader than the federal ADA test, so the physiological cause requirement does most of the work in weight cases.
Does a genetic cause count as physiological?
Yes, according to Cornell. The plaintiff testified that her doctors told her the obesity was genetic. The court reasoned that “the pertinent question is whether a genetic cause qualifies as a ‘physiological cause,’” and it defined “physiological” as “relating to the functioning of living organisms.” The court concluded the term includes genetics.
That reading matters for defense strategy. Many plaintiffs in weight cases can point to a doctor who has mentioned genetics, metabolism, a thyroid condition, or another medical factor. An employer that assumes it can win by calling the condition lifestyle-related, with no medical evidence of its own, is taking a real risk.
Why did the employer lose summary judgment in Cornell?
Because it didn’t carry its initial burden. The court explained that the club “presented no scientific or expert evidence that Cornell’s obesity lacks a physiological cause.” It relied instead on the plaintiff’s deposition, her physician’s deposition, and her discovery responses, trying to show that she had no evidence of a physiological cause.
That approach didn’t work on the record. The court held that “The Club failed to sustain this burden on the claims requiring Cornell to show that her obesity has a physiological cause,” and it reinstated the FEHA discrimination and harassment claims and the wrongful termination claim.
The practical lesson is about how summary judgment works in California. Under the summary judgment standard Cornell applied, a defendant can win by showing the plaintiff “does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain,” evidence on an element. That takes discovery aimed squarely at the point: specific interrogatories about every medical opinion on causation, document requests for medical records, and deposition questions to the treating doctors. General questions about the plaintiff’s health rarely get there.
Timing matters as well. The medical discovery has to be finished, and any expert retained, before the motion is filed, because the motion is judged on the record that exists when it’s brought. Employers that wait until the last months before trial to ask about causation often find there isn’t time to build the record, and the case goes to a jury on the disability question. Raising the physiological cause issue in the first round of written discovery, and following up with the treating doctors, keeps the option open.
| Defense approach | How it plays out | Risk |
|---|---|---|
| No physiological cause, supported by expert evidence | Can negate the disability element | Expert cost; plaintiff may offer a competing expert |
| Plaintiff lacks evidence of a cause, shown through targeted discovery | Can shift the burden at summary judgment | Fails if discovery left any medical opinion unexplored |
| Legitimate business reason for the decision | Answers discrimination even if a disability exists | Depends on consistent, documented reasons |
| No adverse treatment related to weight | Answers harassment and discrimination claims | Undercut by comments about weight in emails or texts |
Can weight claims proceed even without a physical disability?
Yes, through other theories. FEHA also protects employees who are regarded or treated as having a disability, so a supervisor’s statements about an employee’s weight and health can support a perceived-disability claim even when the physiological cause question is unresolved. The firm’s post on perceived disability discrimination covers that theory.
Comments are the bigger practical problem. In many weight cases, the strongest evidence for the employee isn’t the medical record. It’s an email, text, or remark from a manager about the employee’s size, appearance, or ability to keep up. Those statements support harassment claims and can be used to argue that the stated reason for a termination was a pretext. Employers that train managers to keep appearance and weight out of performance conversations remove a lot of that risk.
What should employers do about weight-related job requirements?
Tie them to the job. A physical requirement, like lifting a set weight or fitting into required safety equipment, is easier to defend when it’s written into the job description and applied to everyone in the role. A decision based on how an employee looks, or on assumptions about health, is much harder to defend and tends to support a perceived-disability claim.
When an employee with obesity asks for a change at work, like a different chair or a modified schedule for medical appointments, the safer course is to treat the request as a possible accommodation request and start the interactive process, without first deciding whether the condition qualifies as a disability. Arguing later that the employee wasn’t disabled is a fallback, not a reason to skip the dialogue.
Once a weight-based claim arrives
- Preserve the personnel file, performance records, job descriptions, emails and texts that mention the employee’s weight or health, and the relevant policies, under a litigation hold.
- Calendar the deadline on the CRD complaint, demand, or summons, and check for an arbitration agreement and an EPLI policy with notice terms.
- Identify every manager who made or heard comments about the employee’s appearance, and stop any further action against the employee that could look like retaliation.
- Gather the accommodation requests, interactive process notes, and termination or discipline paperwork the claim depends on.
- Talk with counsel about medical discovery and expert needs before responding to the claim or making any offer.
Weight claims often sit beside harassment and wrongful termination claims. The firm’s page on employer defense in California employment cases describes how those cases are defended.
Weight discrimination questions from employers
Is weight a protected category in California?
Not by itself under FEHA. Weight isn’t listed as a separate protected characteristic in the statute. It becomes protected when it qualifies as a disability, which under Cassista requires evidence of a physiological cause, or when the employer treats the employee as disabled because of it. Local ordinances can add protections in some cities, so multi-location employers should check local law too.
Can we ask an employee whether their weight has a medical cause?
Medical inquiries of current employees are limited under FEHA to those that are job-related and consistent with business necessity. Asking an employee to explain their weight, outside an accommodation request or a legitimate fitness-for-duty concern, invites a claim. If the employee raises a medical issue, the interactive process gives the employer a lawful way to request the information needed to evaluate an accommodation.
Does Cornell make it harder to win weight cases?
It makes summary judgment harder to win without evidence. Cornell didn’t change the Cassista rule, and the plaintiff there still had to prove a physiological cause. What it shows is that an employer has to do more than point at the plaintiff’s thin record. Targeted medical discovery, and in some cases a defense expert, give the motion a much better chance.
Are weight comments harassment even if the employee isn’t disabled?
They can still cause problems. If the employee proves a disability or a perceived disability, weight-based comments can support a disability harassment claim. Even when the claim fails, those comments tend to show up as evidence of bias in a related discrimination case. Employers should treat comments about weight and appearance as a policy violation regardless of how a claim might later be pleaded.
If a former employee says weight drove the decision
If your company has received a CRD complaint or lawsuit alleging weight-based disability discrimination or harassment, the medical evidence and the managers’ comments usually decide how the case goes. Rosenberger + Kawabata represents employers defending employment lawsuits and claims through its business litigation practice, including claims involving disability discrimination based on weight. Contact Rosenberger + Kawabata online for a confidential consultation, or call (310) 894-6921.
Sources
The statute is Government Code section 12926. The case is Cornell v. Berkeley Tennis Club (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 908.
This post is general information about California and federal employment law as of November 7, 2026. It is not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Employment statutes, regulations, and court decisions change often, and the outcome of any claim depends on its facts. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.