The EEOC recently sued an organization that fired an employee because of her weight. Is obesity bias the next hot-button issue that employers need to watch out for?
The lawsuit was filed against Resources for Human Development, Inc. (RHD), a nonprofit with over 4,000 employees in 14 states throughout the country.
The case arose after a former RHD employee, Lisa Harrison, claimed that she had been illegally fired from a New Orleans-area facility because of a protected disability.
Keep up with all the latest state and federal developments you need to know about with the 2011 Guide to Employment Law for California Employers—preorder now!
Harrison, who worked with the young children of mothers undergoing treatment for addiction, claimed that she was able to perform all of the essential functions of her position. She argued that RHD illegally perceived that she was substantially limited in a number of major life activities, including walking, as a result of her obesity. (Harrison passed away before the EEOC filed suit; the lawsuit has been filed on behalf of Harrison’s estate.)
According to the EEOC press release, “The filing of this suit sends a strong message to employers that they cannot fire disabled employees based on perceptions and prejudice.”
While certain weight-related conditions (such as Type 2 diabetes) can be considered disabilities entitled to protection under both state and federal law, weight itself is a protected characteristic in only one state (Michigan) and six U.S. cities (two of which are in California: San Francisco and Santa Cruz).
“As California goes, so goes the nation.” Nowhere is this saying more true than with employment laws and trends. Bone up on the latest with the 2011 Guide to Employment Law for California Employers.
Is the tide turning? The EEOC’s lawsuit seems to indicate that this is a possibility, and the recent amendments to the federal ADA have broadened the definition of “disability” in a number of ways.
The issue, unsurprisingly, is hotly contested. Proponents of anti-weight-bias statutes argue that a person’s weight is largely out of his or her control; they point to the low success rate of diets and the role of genetics in determining weight, as well as persistent discrimination against heavier individuals.
Opponents, on the other hand, claim that weight is substantively different than fixed characteristics like race and sex, and that obese employees are more costly than other employees due to heightened healthcare costs.
Employers, what do you think? Is this the start of a new trend towards greater protection on the basis of weight? And, if so, is this the right way to go?
Email me your comments at jcarsen@employeradvice.com. We’ll share your thoughts in an upcoming issue of CED.