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This discussion has been archived.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: 1) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 16 2014, @12:58PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 16 2014, @12:58PM (#55876)

    Look, there's a big difference between "chunky" and "disabled by weight." Disabled by weight in the sense that they exceed the weight limit of a physicians examining or surgical table. Disabled in the sense that they can't squeeze through 28" doorways. Disabled in the sense that "normal" office furniture and workstations are unusable.

    I think there's a legitimate question here: an employer has to have doorways big enough for a wheelchair to fit, and certain employers have to have sinks, tables, and countertops that accommodate wheelchairs. In cases where the physical difference from "normal" is pathological or accidental, one clearly wishes not to punish the individual further than nature has already, so the interesting question is: when the individual bears some sense of culpability for his physical differences, does it become OK for society to punish them? ADA requires companies to accommodate amputees, even if the amputee cut his own limb.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Underrated=1, Total=1

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by q.kontinuum on Monday June 16 2014, @02:09PM

    by q.kontinuum (532) on Monday June 16 2014, @02:09PM (#55895) Journal

    Your logic is flawed. There is a difference between "not supporting" (as in not taking an action to help someone) and "punishing" (as in taking an action to make someones live less pleasant). I would not want to punish anyone because of obesity; basically it is his/her decision to do something about it or not. And I'm a good enough person (like most of us) to be willing to support people who need help without being responsible for the root cause of this need, or even if they were responsible but actively try to counter it now.

    But the question at stake here is, do we want to actively support people, who actively continue to disable themselves further, and even strengthen their own self-perception as helpless victims of circumstances, which the vast majority of them are not. And that's something I'm not so sure the majority wants to do.

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