Stephen Grindle worked as a driver and dock worker for Watkins Motor Lines. A majority of his time was spent loading, unloading, and arranging freight, which required a wide range of movement. Grindle weighed 450 lbs. in November of 1995 and injured himself when a ladder he was climbing broke. Several months later, he requested time off to recover from a lingering knee injury from the accident. The leave was granted with the knowledge that he would be terminated if he stayed on leave longer than 180 days and that he would need a return-to-work release signed by a doctor and a physical to return to work. Grindle was unable to get a complete release signed by his doctor and at his physical, the industrial clinic doctor determined that Grindle would be unable to perform his job functions because of his weight and limited range of movement. Grindle was placed on safety hold and was unable to return to work in 180 days, so he was terminated. Grindle filed a complaint of discrimination under the ADA with the EEOC. The EEOC filed suit against Watkins on Grindle's behalf, alleging that by firing Grindle for his obesity, the company had violated the ADA. The district court found that nonphysiologically caused obesity is not a disability under the ADA and granted summary judgment for Watkins. Grindle appealed. What rationale did the appellate court give for its decision to affirm or reject the grant of summary judgment? EEOC v.Watkins Motor Lines, Inc., 463 F.3d 436 (6th Cir. 2006).