Discrimination Against Obese Man Legal
I thought this case was an interesting example of outright employment discrimination that is legal. In Goodman vs. L.A. Weight Loss Center , a morbidly obese man is not hired by the weight loss center because he did not "fit the company image." I think the case is frivolous but could lead to some interesting implications in other cases. What do you guys think? Do you see a problem with legal employment discrimination based on physical characteristics??
posted by mel at
1:00 PM
4 Comments:
I agree with the court in ruling in favor of the company of not hiring the man. It sounds as though the company explicitly states in applications there criteria for hiring employees. That set of criteria is put in place to sell and promote the product. By hiring an obese individual, the company would take the risk of losing customers due to the fact that the customers may believe the product does not work by merely looking at the individual. Throughout society, there are similar cases where employers seek individuals that they know will promote their product. With regards to the business of weight loss products, it is much easier for a physically fit individual to promote the product than one that is obese.
I also agree with the court ruling in this case. It would be different if the employer in question was Wal-Mart or some other business where weight did not affect the employees ability to do the job (in this case sell the product). However, in certain cases physical characteristics are necessary in doing the job. For example, firemen must prove that they are in excellent physical condition before being hired. In these cases, taking physical appearance into consideration should not be considered discriminatory.
This is a good discussion. In February, when we begin to discuss the ins and outs of the federal employment anti-discrimination laws, I'll be interested to see how far you're willing to stretch the logic you've been espousing. Should a paraplegic be denied a job selling running shoes because she can't run?
(I'll grant that's not necessarily the fairest of comparisons for several reasons.)
I also agree with the court's ruling. L.A. Weight Loss probably does not want to put it this way, but since non-discrimination law does not protect people because of their physical shape, the company can discriminate on that basis.
It sounds like the court seriously considered the potential harm to the employer. I think this point is valid for sales jobs because it only makes sense to allow discrimination if the potential harm (or sales ineffectiveness) is great. For example, we wouldn't want a plastic surgeon to discriminate against "non-perfect" people unless they were in seriously need of plastic surgery.
Regarding applicability, I suppose this rule can only apply to sales jobs for goods and services that claim to change you in some way. Using this guideline, Prof. Prenkert's example would not fit because shoes do not give you the ability to run.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home