this post was submitted on 21 May 2024
121 points (95.5% liked)
Not The Onion
12308 readers
710 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Comments must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Do they actually have a case here? Race, gender, and sexual orientation are not things a person can control.
A person can control their religion, and that's illegal to discriminate against. A person can also control whether or not they're in a union, for example, and retaliation from an employer based on that is illegal. "Is it something that can't be controlled" isn't the test for whether or not something is considered illegal discrimination in employment.
Which, also, none of us know why he's overweight and it's frankly irrelevant. There could be any number of reasons for it that aren't controllable or aren't currently under control, including mental health conditions and hormonal issues. He shouldn't need to give employers his medical records before they decide whether or not to comply with a request to exclude him and only him based on his appearance.
Not necessarily disagreeing, but religion and the right to associate are rights protected by the constitution in most circumstances.
It's legal in approx 49 of the US States. So not likely a case here. Being fat isn't a protected class.
I think it's a bit of a stretch. The businesses reasoning was that the severe weight of the staff member would interfere with performing the job, claiming it was "a full house" and that it wouldn't be possible to walk around properly in the venue. That can easily be formalised as an OH&S concern.
As long as they did it in a professional manner, I don't think that's promoting fatphobia, which is being claimed, even though I'm pretty sure obesity is not a protected class. The fact that part of the article tries to support the case by saying the film contains fat jokes shows there's not a lot of weight to the case.
Maybe they could go for workplace bullying, but that won't work for an isolated incident.
I was actually talking to a lawyer friend of mine about this yesterday. Not this case, just is being overweight a protected class.
Apparently it isn't, it's illegal to discriminate based on ability which might be limited due to your weight depending on how overweight the individual was but the weight itself is not a protected class. It comes up sometimes when people try to do things like sue theme parks because they can't ride the roller coasters. My friend always has to tell them that they don't have a case.
It gets complicated because sometimes somebody cannot be accommodated because they are in a wheelchair or mobility scooter but that in that wheelchair because of their weight rather than any other disability, at which point technically it would be legal to discriminate against them. Although the defense lawyer would have to prove that there was no other mobility issue other than that caused by weight.
Apparently none of this has any precedent though, so it's basically just legal interpretation rather than actual law.
Weight is often something that people can't control. There are many reasons why someone can be overweight or obese.
Not often. Extremely rarely that's the case.
I scrolled his IG and he hasn’t posted anything new in a while but he certainly doesn’t look like he was 360 in any of his photos. One could speculate it was a recent weight gain. He also hasn’t posted any new videos of his singing on YouTube in a couple years. I can personally empathize with how he might have felt being excluded but don’t have a lot of sympathy for his lawsuit. Servers at a party are expected to blend into the background but being both big and tall probably attracts too much attention.
Purely speculating, but it sounds like he's clinically depressed, and weight gain is often a byproduct of depression. Depression is considered a disability at the federal level, so he's potentially part of a protected class.
I personally don't buy the "he's big and tall and it's distracting" argument. From what I can tell, this wasn't part of a film set or the like; it's just a normal party. Since he's a server, what about his appearance is stopping him from doing his job? If appearance matters so much, what's stopping his employer for providing a new outfit? Companies are legally required to provide accommodations in this case if the server has a disability, which might be the case.
From the few excerpts I've read, this just seems like a few judgemental execs didn't want someone to get paid because of his weight, and I have 0 sympathy for that BS. The only other take I've seen is that due to space constraints, having him would be an occupational hazard, which is fair.
Well he certainly wouldn't cheer anybody up at the party in either case. I'd put money on this case getting bounced as soon as a judge has anything to do with it.
ETA: I hope he's okay.
But for most people it's too many calories, not enough activity.
If you ignore the reasons why someone might eat too many calories relative to what their specific body needs, then yes.