Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To begin with, I'm glad the thread's title was changed.
Weight discrimination is rampant in our society, yet only a handful of cities (including DC), and one state (Michigan) directly outlaw such discrimination.
We don't know enough about his job duties and job history to make a rational judgment as to whether or not his job performance (which had been previously adjudged as "very good") had deteriorated. If he literally became incapable of doing his job, the company is on solid ground. However, if the company merely assumed--minus proof-- that his weight somehow prevented him from doing his job, he has a legitimate claim.
Obese people are human beings first. Unfortunately, many people who would never think of expressing hatred based upon someone's race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation; have no qualms about doing so when the object of that scorn is someone who is obese.
We don't know enough about his job duties and job history to make a rational judgment as to whether or not his job performance (which had been previously adjudged as "very good") had deteriorated.
BAE contended Kratz had difficulty walking from the parking lot to the plant, from which it concluded he had trouble walking around the facility, said Kathy Boutchee, the EEOC lawyer in charge of the case.
The company also told EEOC investigators that Kratz, now 42, had difficulty bending, stooping and kneeling.
Well, according to the article, we know that he was having difficulty getting from one location to another. And that he couldn't bend, stoop or kneel. His performance history seems to indicate that these weren't concerns before he attained his current weight. Is that enough to help draw a conclusion?
Wait and see: this will all be settled out of court, and Kratz will walk away (I'll resist the temptation to make a comment that might be construed as negative towards the obese) with a tidy sum.
To begin with, I'm glad the thread's title was changed.
Weight discrimination is rampant in our society, yet only a handful of cities (including DC), and one state (Michigan) directly outlaw such discrimination.
Being born with MS is a disability
Breaking your neck and being paralyzed from the waist down is a disability
Having severe ASTHMA is a disability.
Not being able to refrain from eating 24 doughnuts in one sitting is not a disability. That's a lifestyle choice. You don't climb to 600 pounds because you have a gland that's out of control. You climb to 600 pounds because you spend too much time sucking the marrow out of chicken bones because KFC's 20 piece bucket "wasn't enough food".
Researchers from Harvard and the University of California, San Diego, reviewed a database of 12,067 densely interconnected people — that is, a group that included many families and friends — who had all participated in a major American heart study between 1971 and 2003. ...According to their analysis, when a study participant's friend became obese, that first participant had a 57% greater chance of becoming obese himself. In pairs of people in which each identified the other as a close friend, when one person became obese the other had a 171% greater chance of following suit. "You are what you eat isn't the end of the story," says study co-author James Fowler, a political scientist at UC San Diego. "You are what you and your friends eat."
Nahhh, just send him to Cuba for medical treatment...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.