Why Weight-Discrimination Cases Pose Thorny Legal Tests

[question everything]

The Wall Street Journal

October 2, 2007

Why Weight-Discrimination Cases Pose Thorny Legal Tests
By PERRI CAPELL
October 2, 2007; Page B4

Q: I am a professional woman whose job at an Atlanta-area company was terminated after only one day. The recruiter told me the owner said he didn't like me because I was overweight and had large breasts. A smaller woman with less experience was hired to replace me. Can I fight this?

A: As you describe it, your prior employer's behavior was offensive and humiliating, but winning a suit would be difficult, say plaintiff's attorneys who specialize in employment issues. Under Georgia law, it isn't illegal to dismiss someone for weight reasons, says Thomas Mitchell, a partner with Carothers & Mitchell LLC, a Buford, Ga., firm that practices labor and employment law. (Michigan; Santa Cruz and San Francisco, Calif., and Washington, D.C., have passed laws barring employment discrimination because of weight.)

Federal law -- Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- prohibits discriminating against employees because of their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. This law has been used in weight-discrimination cases when weight standards are applied differently to men and women, reports the Council on Size and Weight Discrimination Inc., an advocacy group. But because another woman was hired to replace you, it is unlikely you could file a complaint based on sex discrimination, Mr. Mitchell says.

(snip)

Calling or visiting the Atlanta office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which investigates discrimination complaints, can help you determine your options, says Gary Weissman, an employment mediator and former plaintiff's employment attorney in Minneapolis. Filing a claim is free, and investigators will probably tell you in advance whether you have any basis for a suit. If your case is worth checking out, the EEOC will do so at no cost to you.

(snip)

But the recruiter could still change her statement or say she wasn't being honest with you.

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119127447501845542.html (subscription)

[Kiouni]

1. Why did the recruiter even give a reason?

That's just stupid. Tell them, "Thanks for your time, but we no longer require your services." And fire them because they didn't hold the elevator for you or whatever, but if this lady sues you can bet that recruiter's ass is gone.

Oh, and that's screwed up they fired her based on her weight. Just in case I came off too strongly for corporate gains.

[Nay]

2. All she has to do is prove they employ fat men and she's won her

case. I hope she gets millions and never has to work again/

[no_hypocrisy]

3. I believe in the future weight discrimination cases will be given judicial

consideration and plaintiffs will be able to prove they were let go solely due to their physical appearance. And with enough cases employees won't worry about losing their jobs and/or being relegated to jobs where they can't be seen.

[DemBones DemBones]

4. When did men start disliking large breasts?

It strikes me as odd for the man to mention that she was overweight and had large breasts. If a woman gains weight, she normally develops larger breasts. So do many men.


I, too, hope that this woman sues and gets a sizable settlement. If they were idiotic enough to say they were firing her because she is overweight and has large breasts, they should have to pay for the humiliation she endured and for not giving her a chance at doing the job she was hired to do.

She ought to be re-hired with back pay but I'd take a settlement rather than work with a man who doesn't like people who are overweight or have large breasts. . . Say, she wasn't working for Bill Maher, was she?


I think the fact that her large breasts were specifically mentioned makes it sexism as well as discrimination against her for her weight. In the workplace and in polite society (whatever there is left of it), men should not comment about women's breasts or other parts of their anatomy and women should not comment about men's bodies.

[No Coercion]

5. obesity can be a health care cost liability

If I owned a business and provided employee health care benefits, I would be opposed to hiring significantly overweight people due to the fact they could potentially eat up (pardon the pun) a lot more money for health care (just as I would prefer not to hire smokers and diabetics). And I certainly wouldn't appreciate the government violating my rights by telling me that wasn't a good reason not to hire someone. Of course, if these health-risk potential employees had their own insurance to cover their conditions, I would probably not have a problem hiring them.

[DemBones DemBones]

6. You would prefer not to hire diabetics, overweight people, and smokers?

That's an odd position to express in the Justice forum, don't you think? Especially for someone with the username "No Coercion." :hippie:

In fact, it's illegal to discriminate against the disabled, which would include diabetics and many overweight people, though the GOP (of course) has been trying to weaken the ADA ever since it was passed.

Justice is the issue here. It's unjust to discriminate for reasons irrelevant to job performance. This employer essentially said he wants his employees to be eye candy for him, which is not a reasonable job requirement.

If employers are allowed to discriminate against people who smoke or are overweight or have diabetes or have to use a wheelchair, eventually they'll discriminate against you, because eventually you'll have a health problem yourself.
Or companies will be able to force you to have genetic analyses done as a precondition to hiring or as a requirement for remaining employed. Do you want employers to have the right to see your genetic info and deny you insurance coverage, then fire you because you might develop diabetes, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, Parkinson's disease, or another condition that would cost money to treat?

[No Coercion]

7. maybe I'm just crazy

That's an odd position to express in the Justice forum, don't you think? Especially for someone with the username "No Coercion."

But that's just it--the justness of an action is of the utmost importance to me, and using coercion to restrict the hiring/firing options at someone's disposal strikes me as unjust, no matter what feel-good rationale is used to defend it.

In fact, it's illegal to discriminate against the disabled...

I know--I just don't think it should be. It's a violation of voluntary interaction among people.

Justice is the issue here. It's unjust to discriminate for reasons irrelevant to job performance.

I think you're using the word 'justice' to describe what you personally view as fairness in a perfect world. In fact, it's critical (and just) to not want to hire someone because of their potential overwhelming health care costs. How many business can't even afford to hire employees because of the anti-discrimination laws? How much unnecessary unemployment do we have because of those laws? You've got to look at all the affects of such restrictions.

Do you want employers to have the right to see your genetic info and deny you insurance coverage, then fire you because you might develop diabetes, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, Parkinson's disease, or another condition that would cost money to treat?

I think that it is unjust to use force to prevent someone from making whatever hiring/firing decision they feel they need to make. I wouldn't be happy about a medical condition preventing me from being hired (or causing me to be fired), but I would never be so unjust as to deny my employer's rights. And besides, imagine how much better we would all take care of ourselves if we knew that our employment could hinge on our level of health and fitness. Just a thought. :)