Obesity's new label concerns employers
By McClatchy Newspapers
Published: Saturday, July 27, 2013, 9:00 p.m.
Ignore an obese employee's request for a larger desk chair and prepare to be sued for violating disability accommodations law.
Don't hire an overweight woman because she doesn't fit your corporate sales image and face a possible discrimination lawsuit.
Call your employee “Fatty” instead of his name and open up your company to harassment charges.
A decision this summer by the American Medical Association to classify obesity as a disease, instead of a condition, has heightened concerns among employment law officials about such possible workplace outcomes.
Employees who are obese — possibly as few as 30 pounds over recommended body weight for their height, age and gender — are more likely to be recognized as disabled with rights under the 2008 amendments to the Americans with Disabilities Act.
That can be a big, costly deal, given that one-third of American adults are classified as obese, on top of one-third considered overweight. The obesity rate jumped nearly 50 percent from 1997 to 2012, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
“Recognizing obesity as a disease will help change the way the medical community tackles this complex issue,” AMA board member Patrice Harris said.
The physician group's redefinition of obesity doesn't in itself have any force of law, “but there's a high probability it will make it easier for an obese employee to argue that he or she is disabled,” said Myra Creighton, a partner at Fisher & Phillips who specializes in advising employers about obligations relative to workers with disabilities.
“It may be easier for employees to prove disability discrimination,” Creighton said. “And, if classified as a disease, it will be difficult for employers to argue that any level of obesity is not an impairment.”
Disability law says an impairment is something that affects a major life activity or body function — and that could include walking or sitting.
A portent of things to come emerged in a lawsuit settled last year. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued a BAE Systems subsidiary in Houston for disability discrimination. The commission charged that the company regarded an employee as disabled and fired him because of his obesity even though he could perform his job.
To settle the case, the company agreed to pay the fired worker $55,000 and cover his outplacement services, train managers in disability law compliance and post anti-discrimination notices in the workplace.
Studies long have confirmed a “beauty bias” — a tendency for employers to hire and promote attractive people over less comely ones. That bias includes a tacit preference for trim people.
Yet such bias is nearly impossible to prove in a discrimination lawsuit. And obese workers, with extremely limited exceptions, have never had any specific anti-discrimination protections by law.
The AMA's reclassification of obesity as a disease sparked conjecture that will change.
Creighton's advice: “Employers should avoid any suggestion that the employee's weight suggests the employee cannot do a particular job.”
Employment law attorneys and human resource officials are watching to see whether the EEOC expands its definition of a disability beyond its “morbidly obese” distinction. That generally means someone weighs twice the normal body weight.
“Even if the EEOC does not rush to expand the definition of disability, employers should be aware that overweight employees may still be protected under the ADA,” Shannon Morales and Elizabeth Rudnick wrote in a legal post on Lexology.com.
Under federal disability law, even if employees aren't morbidly obese and aren't limited in life functions, they may qualify as protected by law if the employer “regards” them as impaired.
Thus, workers passed over for hiring or promotion because of obesity may be able to show they were denied jobs because the employer regarded them as impaired.
Ken Sigman, owner of Health and Benefit Systems, a consulting company in Leawood, Kan., worries that the AMA reclassification of obesity as a disease needs more input from nutritionists and other groups before it causes changes in workplace case law.
“Obesity is more of a risk factor than a disease,” Sigman contended. “And it can be temporary. People can lose weight. So I think the AMA may have gone a bit too far.”
Without a doubt, Sigman acknowledged, studies show that obesity correlates to higher risks of diabetes, heart disease, stroke and other metabolic syndromes. And those conditions lead to higher medical and pharmacy costs, more absenteeism, and higher workers' compensation and short-term disability costs.
But he warned against employers making assumptions about who is obese. Body fat analysis can show surprising results, he said, sometimes proving, for example, that hulking football players have extremely low body fat or apparently “normal-sized” women have high fat indexes.
Obesity in adults is defined as having a body mass index, or BMI, of 30 or higher.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Municipal bonds do another about-face
- Regular or Roth? Pick either
- Minorities crucial to filling Marcellus shale gas drilling jobs
- Harsh winter sets back Western Pa. maple harvest
- Achieving proper credit balance
- Prepaid cards start to elbow aside bank accounts
- Real estate goes techno
- ‘Boomerang’ buyers get another chance at homeownership
- Diaper makers do due diligence
- CVS suit could be test case
- Pa. attorney general probing spike in electric bills