That's only a matter of time if new restrictions against weight and height discrimination are added to Massachusetts' anti-discrimination law.
The bill, which would make Massachusetts the second state in the United States to offer such protections, applies mainly to the workplace but also covers landlords and real estate interactions.
Rep. Byron Rushing, a Boston Democrat who is sponsoring the bill, said it is a question of civil rights.
"This is one of the last physical aspects of people that you can acceptably laugh about," said Rushing, who is black, slim and of average height. "You can be a shock jock on the radio and talk about fat people for a solid week and no one would ever think of having you lose your job. It's still acceptable."
Do we really think companies should be as concerned about fat jokes as racist jokes? Do they honestly think weight carries the same baggage (sorry) historically as race does? Rush Limbaugh--no small man himself--would have a field day with this legislation.
I've always thought about discrimination law being based on basic immutable characteristics. I can't change my race. And while I could have a sex change operation, my DNA would always say I was something different. Weight can be changed, although it is easier for some people than for others.
Height is an immutable characteristic, but is there really that much discrimination based on it? I'm of average height for a woman, but my husband is really tall. Would he have a case against an employer if someone made a joke about his height?
What's the next thing to be added? Ugliness? Cross-eyes? Bad teeth? Big ears? Where does our criminalization of being offended end?
I believe that opportunity in our society should be merit based. When Martin Luther King said he looked for a time when "my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character" he meant judgements on merit for everybody not just "Negroes."
ReplyDeleteTherefore, I was an original sponsor of the gay rights bill
and the chief sponsor of the law to end discrimination on the basis of
sexual orientation in public schools. I am the chief
sponsor of the same-sex marriage bill and am a leader in the
constitutional debate to maintain the Goodridge decision. I support
the freedom of religious worship and practices. I was a leader of the Commonwealth's anti-apartheid efforts and the chief sponsor of the Massachusetts Burma law.
House bill 1844 An Act Making It Unlawful to Discriminate On the Basis of Height and Weight is an attempt to continue our tradition of fairness and merit based opportunity.
What would this bill do?
Massachusetts General Law already states that most employers and many landlords may not discriminate against persons based on race, color, religious creed, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, or ancestry. This bill would amend these statutes to include height and weight to the list of so-called "protected classes."
BTW, employers presently have two exceptions in the law and these will not change:
• those employing fewer than six employees.
• employers may not discriminate based upon the stated characteristics unless there is a “bona fide occupational qualification” that requires hiring based upon specific characteristics and abilities. Under this narrowly-applied exception, an employer invoking this defense must show that there is an objective, factual basis for believing that substantially all members of the excluded class would be unable to perform safely and efficiently the essential functions of the job. For instance, a department store would not be liable for discrimination for refusing to hire a male as a women’s dressing room attendant, because a male could not efficiently carry out the essential function of assisting the female customers.
While Michigan is the only state to outlaw discrimination based on weight and height, there are a few cities with similar laws. In 2000, San Francisco outlawed discrimination based on weight. An ordinance in Santa Cruz includes differential treatment as a result of height and weight in its definition of unlawful discrimination. Washington DC’s Human Rights Law includes personal appearance as an outlawed basis for discrimination.
There is much evidence that people who are overweight face significant discrimination, particularly in the employment setting. And growing research on stature discrimination.
For more research information contact:
Rudd Center for Food
Policy & Obesity Yale University
www.yaleruddcenter.org
--Byron Rushing
An exercise in mind-reading, this one. Next we will have to come up with laws prohibiting discrimination based on physical attractiveness, or the lack thereof.
ReplyDeleteWho knows if Mr Rushing will return to this site, but the obvious question is: if two men are applying for the same position, and the taller one gets the job, will the shorter candidate automatically have grounds on which to sue? In theory, every hiring decision, which are, in the end, judgement calls, would be subject to the legal system by the non-selected candidates.
I'm sure short (because we really are talking about short people, not tall ones) and fat people feel discriminated against when they go for job interviews. But if you have cross eyes or big ears or buck teeth, you might not get a job, either. Where do we stop?
ReplyDeleteI'm also curious to know what was the discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in public schools. Is this to prevent boys from going in girls' restrooms?