• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

overweight discrimination

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Status
Not open for further replies.

BelizeBreeze

Senior Member
judith said:
Amen? You're using spiritual words to back up a man with no heart?:confused: :confused:
No, M just recognized what I do and the founders of this country and the framers of the U.S. Constitution knew. NO ONE is devoid of prejudice. In fact, only one man walked this earth without sin and he hung from a cross.

Are you telling us that you plan on stepping up on it next?

EVERYONE is prejudice in some degree. and if you think not, you're a fool. In the present case, just because the poster's husband is fat is NOT an excuse to file suit for loosing his job. And even if he was fired for being fat, there is no legal foundation for a civil suit.

So live in the real world where people have prejudices and they live with them.
 


mitousmom

Member
The various governmental jurisdictions in the US have chosen to outlaw only certain types of employment discrimination. At the federal level, most of the prohibited discrimination is based on immutable characteristics, such as sex, race, national origin, etc. Being overweight is not considered an immutable characteristic and it's not a characteristic Congress has chosen to address. However, morbid obesity can be a disability under the Americans with Discrimination Act, if the individual's obesity substantially limits a major life's activity. However, such disabilities are rare.

Prejudice, or pre-judging, is an aspect of human nature, not limited to those in the United States, and as far as I can determine, not one of the rights granted by the US Constitution. It flows from our sensory need to classify and distinguish stimuli.

One could also argue that Jesus Christ demonstrated prejudice, or at least discriminated. The instance I recall best is His casting certain people (moneychangers) out of the Temple, while allowing others to remain. He, therefore, discriminated against the moneychangers. However, focusing on that trivializes His overall message of universal love for all.
 

christianirc

Junior Member
BelizeBreeze said:
NO ONE is devoid of prejudice. In fact, only one man walked this earth without sin and he hung from a cross.
My response wasn't to her case, I believe that is silly to even attempt. My response was in being hurt by what you said. I see you are a christian, I am too. I doubt anyone could tell by our bantering. I replied in a hurt manner and should never have said anything. I'm sorry I put you down (christian or not) , I was stooping to a level I shouldn't have.
 

BelizeBreeze

Senior Member
christianirc said:
My response wasn't to her case, I believe that is silly to even attempt. My response was in being hurt by what you said. I see you are a christian, I am too. I doubt anyone could tell by our bantering. I replied in a hurt manner and should never have said anything. I'm sorry I put you down (christian or not) , I was stooping to a level I shouldn't have.
And THAT dear, is the point. This forum is about Law, not feelings or prejudices or anything else except the letter of the law ;)
 

judith

Junior Member
christianirc said:
My response wasn't to her case, I believe that is silly to even attempt. My response was in being hurt by what you said. I see you are a christian, I am too. I doubt anyone could tell by our bantering. I replied in a hurt manner and should never have said anything. I'm sorry I put you down (christian or not) , I was stooping to a level I shouldn't have.
So what you're saying is that because he is a "christian" it is okay to give a response like he did?
 

judith

Junior Member
christianirc said:
My response wasn't to her case, I believe that is silly to even attempt. My response was in being hurt by what you said. I see you are a christian, I am too. I doubt anyone could tell by our bantering. I replied in a hurt manner and should never have said anything. I'm sorry I put you down (christian or not) , I was stooping to a level I shouldn't have.
So what you are saying is that because he is a "christian" it is okay to give a response like he did? My argument is not about my situation sanymore. It is about his attitude in his responses. When some one comes here for advice he has a smart remark that hurts people's feelings. Can you see MY point? The only reason I am still posting is to get my point across that he is a very hypocritical person and that he can't give decent advice!!!! Why should you apologize when HE was the one offending YOU?:confused:
 

Ohiogal

Queen Bee
Beth3 said:
Only the State of Michigan includes obesity as a protected characteristic.

I have no idea why your husband hasn't received a raise in the past several years but the chances that his size is the issue are slim to none. You're jumping to major conclusions. If your husband's manager hasn't discussed your husband's compensation with him in the past several years and explained why he hasn't received a pay increase, then your husband needs to schedule time with his boss to talk about this.
Actually there have been dozens of studies done that show that overweight individuals (and more so obese and morbidly obese individuals) have been denied pay raises and promotions based on their weight.
 

Ohiogal

Queen Bee
cbg said:
Judith, here is the bottom line.

Even if you are 100% correct about the reason for your husband's failure to receive a raise or a promotion, in every state except Michigan (and the District of Columbia, which protected personal appearance which can include, but is not limited to, weight), it is 100% legal.

You have by no means convinced me that you are right, but even if you are, the ONLY thing either you or your husband can do about it is lobby your elected representatives for a change in the law to make weight a protected characteristic. As the law stands now, discrimination on the basis of weight is LEGAL.
San Francisco and various other cities have also enacted such protections. But these are very localized laws.
 

BelizeBreeze

Senior Member
judith said:
So what you're saying is that because he is a "christian" it is okay to give a response like he did?
Oh brother! :rolleyes:
The POINT woman, is that you HAVE no point. Who cares if your hubby is so fat you have to wheel him out with a forklift and a ton of lard.

Your 'feelings' mean nothing. Not here, not at hubby's place of employment and certainly not in a court of law. the ONLY thing that matters is that your husband was fired. and unless he (not you) can prove that he was fired for a reason protected under Federal Law, he's SOL.

So stick your feelings in a brown paper bag....they are relevant to nothing.
 

Ohiogal

Queen Bee
mitousmom said:
The various governmental jurisdictions in the US have chosen to outlaw only certain types of employment discrimination. At the federal level, most of the prohibited discrimination is based on immutable characteristics, such as sex, race, national origin, etc. Being overweight is not considered an immutable characteristic and it's not a characteristic Congress has chosen to address. However, morbid obesity can be a disability under the Americans with Discrimination Act, if the individual's obesity substantially limits a major life's activity. However, such disabilities are rare.
I was reading your first paragraph and was going to add about morbid obesity> Such disabilities are not as rare as some people think. I say this because morbid obesity can limit breathing, fertility (which has been deemed a major life activity), standing, and walking among other things. Weight conditions have also been proven to be a physical impairment under the ADA when it is morbid obesity, perceived as such or where the individual suffered from a weight condition that is the symptom of a pysiological disorder. A physical impairment is considered any pysiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfiguration, or anatomical loss affecting one or more of the following body systems: neurological, musculoskeletal, special sense organs, respiratory (including speech organs), cardiovascular, reproductive, digestive, genitourinary, hemic and lymphatic, skin and endocrine.

The ADA has been used various times in the past when it comes to morbid obesity:
See Cook vs. State of Rhode Island, Department of Mental Health, Retardaions and Hospitals 10 F.3d 17
Connor v. McDonald's Restaurant, 2003 US Dist Lexis 4108 (District of Connectivcut, March 17, 2003)
Whaley vs. Southwest Student Transportation L.C. 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis 9103
Larsen v. Carnival Corp., Inc. 242 F. Supp.2d 1333
Kenny vs. Loyola University of Chicago, 2003 U.S. Dist. Lexis 2597
Bunyon vs. Henderson, 206 F. Supp. 2d 28
Furst v. N.Y. Unified Court System, 1999 U.S. District LEXIS 22558 (E.D.N.Y. May 5, 1999)



In 1985 the National Institute of Healh classified obesity as a disease (NOT overweight but obese). As of the mid 1990s, 40 million people are defined as obese, 10 million as severely obese and up to 4 million were morbidly or clinically obese. These are all classifications based on the NIDDK.
And contrary to what BB stated, obesity is not caused simply or completely by overeating. Genetics, behavior (there is the overeating), metabolism and environment play a role in obesity -- and not every case is caused by exactly the same thing. Not to mention there are many diseases that result in obesity (PCOS is a prevalent one that causes women to gain weight due to a hormonal imbalance between estrogen and androgen -- which in turn causes insulin resistance which in turn causes more of a hormonal imbalance which causes weight gain which causes insulin resistance which... on and on).

However if the OPs husband is only overweight and not morbidly obese there is no where to go. If morbidly obese he can try to file with the EEOC (many EEOC offices have handled weight discrimination cases in various states). Based on prior case law there are various factors that must be met. Based on OPs post there is not enough information to determine whether or not those factors will be met.
 

Ohiogal

Queen Bee
BelizeBreeze said:
Oh brother! :rolleyes:
The POINT woman, is that you HAVE no point. Who cares if your hubby is so fat you have to wheel him out with a forklift and a ton of lard.

Your 'feelings' mean nothing. Not here, not at hubby's place of employment and certainly not in a court of law. the ONLY thing that matters is that your husband was fired. and unless he (not you) can prove that he was fired for a reason protected under Federal Law, he's SOL.

So stick your feelings in a brown paper bag....they are relevant to nothing.
BB, point of correction, OP said that her husband has not gotten a raise or promotion. Where did she say that he was fired?
 

cbg

I'm a Northern Girl
Ohiogal, I am aware of those localized laws; however considering how many of them there are (not very) and how many muncipalities exist (hundreds of thousands) the odds are great that they do not apply here, particularly since I am not aware of any in the employee's home state (which is not noted for its liberal discrimination laws).

We also have no evidence but the OP's belief to assume that his weight is a factor at all.
 

mitousmom

Member
Obesity results from many factors, some of which are not within the individual's control. However, the consensus from the scientific and medical communities is that the growing incidence of obesity in the US results from our life style, particularly our eating habits and lack of exercise. If those factors contribute to your husband's weight, you and he may be better served by working to change those, rather than looking for a governmental solution. Losing weight may not only improve his employment opportunities, but also his health.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top