Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Monday June 16 2014, @12:01AM   Printer-friendly
from the a-big-problem dept.

Employers in Europe may soon have a duty to create reserved car parking spaces for obese staff, or adjust the office furniture for them as BBC reports that the European Court of Justice is considering a test case of a male nanny who says he was fired for being too fat - a ruling that could oblige employers to treat obesity as a disability. Employment expert Audrey Williams says the judges would have to decide "whether obesity itself should trigger preferential rights, or should only impact where an individual, due to obesity, has other recognized medical issues. Employers would have a duty to make reasonable adjustments to the workplace or working arrangements," says Williams. "This might include a review of where the employee is located and their seating arrangements, or even preferential access to car parking."

The US Equal Opportunity Commission already defines obesity as being a disability, under the Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act. In a recent case involving morbid obesity, a Texan employee who weighed more than 680 pounds received $55,000 in compensation for being dismissed. In October 2009, the man was told to report to human resources where officials told him the company had reached the conclusion he could no longer "perform his job duties because of his weight and he was therefore terminated," the suit said. Ronald Kratz, who had gotten two promotions and high performance ratings over his 16-year-career, insists his weight did not interfere with his ability to perform his job duties as a parts sorter. Kratz, who lost over three hundred pounds since he was fired, has not been able to find another job despite sending out numerous applications, and his unemployment benefits have run out. "It has been really hard on the family."

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Monday June 16 2014, @01:27AM

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 16 2014, @01:27AM (#55727) Journal

    Why not start when they're mildly obese, or even just a little overweight

    What does it mean "slight overweight" [wikipedia.org]? (hint: forget BMI [wikipedia.org])

    in order to prevent someone from becoming morbidly obese in the first place?

    "Cost of prevention" vs "cost of mitigation" vs "the effectiveness risk management" (i.e. if the impact is small but the cost of managing the risk is high, better accept the risk).
    Want an example? Consider NSA/CIA/DoD monetary budget - add to this the erosion of individual rights.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 1) by q.kontinuum on Monday June 16 2014, @08:00AM

    by q.kontinuum (532) on Monday June 16 2014, @08:00AM (#55821) Journal

    (hint: forget BMI)

    How about body fat percentage? (Yes, I know the measurement is not 100% accurate, but should be good enough to give some guideline.)

    --
    Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum