Treadway v. United Food And Commercial Workers International Union And Employers' Health & Welfare Fund, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 14494 (6^th Cir. June 20, 2000) (unpublished)-This court affirmed the district court's summary judgment against the Treadway's claims that the Union and the Fund violated the terms of the welfare plan and the ADA by refusing to approve coverage for medical treatment of Ms. Treadway's morbid obesity with liposuction.

The district court correctly applied the arbitrary and capricious standard of review since the plan expressly granted discretion to the administrator to determine eligibility for benefits and to construe the terms of the plan agreement. Without delving into detail, this court stated that the Trustees' explanation for denial was a reasoned explanation based on the evidence, and therefore not arbitrary and capricious.

The Treadways' ADA claim failed because a benefit plan offered by an employer is not, as the plaintiffs contended, a "good" as defined by the ADA. The Act prohibits discrimination "on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation." 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a).