A karate instructor was fired twice by the studios where he worked, one in Brooklyn, New York, and the other in Stamford, Connecticut. The studios’ owner, he alleged, told him he was terminated because of his weight. So he sued under New York civil rights laws.

What happened. “Suggs” was hired in June 2000 at a karate studio that is part of a 40-center chain called Tiger Schulmann’s Karate Schools in the Northeast and Florida. In August 2001, he was fired. Then he was hired at another center in Stamford, part of the same chain. In June 2002, he was fired again—he stated one reason, and the defendants gave another.

Suggs later testified that both the chain’s owner, Tiger Schulmann, and a part-owner told him he was being terminated because he was overweight. Schulmann testified instead that Suggs was fired because his co-workers didn’t like him and he’d been overheard disparaging Schulmann. Siegel sued for disabilities discrimination, claiming that a hormonal imbalance prevented him from losing weight. He also said that Schulmann fired another instructor, a friend of his, which Suggs believed was retaliation. He filed his suit under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL).

A federal district court judge dismissed all of Suggs’ charges. First, she ruled, Schulmann wasn’t technically Suggs’ employer—the Brooklyn and Stamford franchise owners were—so he couldn’t be liable for retaliation. Second, Siegel had shown that he had a hormonal imbalance but not that it made him unable to lose weight, so he had no claim under NYSHRL. Third, Siegel’s testimony about Schulmann and the other owner’s comments was hearsay and not admissible. Siegel appealed to the 2nd Circuit, which covers Connecticut, New York, and Vermont.

What the court said. Appellate judges agreed with the district judge that Schulmann couldn’t be liable for retaliation and that Siegel hadn’t shown that he has a disability under NYSHRL. But does NYCHRL view obesity by itself as a disability? No state appellate courts have ruled on this issue, so judges asked the district court to explore this issue. And they disagreed with the district judge that Suggs’ testimony about Schulmann and the other owner’s comments was inadmissible; they admitted it, noting that it suggested Schulmann’s stated reason for firing Suggs might not be true. So that question will go to a jury. Spiegel v. Schulmann, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, No. 06-5914-cv (5/6/10).

Point to remember: Courts do not generally see even morbid obesity as a disability by itself under the Americans with Disabilities Act.