Cook v. State of Rhode Island, et al. 10 F.3d 17 (1993)
• Facts: Appellee Cook was denied employment by appellant Department of Mental Health, Retardation and Hospitals (MHRH). Appellee claims that the decision not to hire her was discriminatory against her disability of being in the state of morbid obesity, alleging the violation of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
A nurse employed by MHRH concluded, following a routine pre-hire physical, that appellee’s state of morbid obesity does not limit her ability to fulfill the duties required for the position that appellee is applying to be employed. Appellant argues appellee’s disability compromises her ability to effectively perform ...view middle of the document...
Both of which were found by the court as having no substantial ground based on credible evidence submitted to the court on the former of the existence of metabolic dysfunction even after weight loss and the Rehabilitation Act contains no such language suggesting such in the latter.
First, the court had to explore whether appellee’s condition was in fact substantially limiting the effect of her major life activities. To explore this idea, the court examines the definition of “major life activities” and “substantiality of limiting effect.” The court did not find any evidence to warrant these assertions.
Second, the court had to determine whether appellee was “otherwise qualified” for the position in which she was seeking employment. Appellant provided arguments that failure to hire appellee was not solely based on the belief of her disability. The court did determine that appellee was “otherwise qualified” to work.
Lastly, the court had to determine whether the submitted evidence...
