Question

A woman weighing 240 pounds had been denied a job as an aerobics instructor by a for-profit fitness center. She sued under San Francisco law, which prohibits discrimination based on appearance, arguing that she had been leading aerobics classes for fifteen years. Was she being discriminated against because of her weight? In other words, was this pure discrimination? Or was she not hired because her potential employer felt that her weight would ensure that few or no clients would take her classes? Was this a sound commercial decision based on her likely productivity? It is impossible to decide between these two possibilities, and this is true generally in cases where the source of potential bias is consumer preferences. The same arguments can be made about discrimination against minorities or women: Businesspeople could always rationalize a refusal to hire on grounds that hiring would be bad for business. If determining the underlying cause is so difficult, in the end, we have to decide which groups to protect on political, not economic, grounds.

500 to 700 words ... essay

Answer 1

We have federal laws in place which prohibit discrimination on grounds of race, color, age, gender, religion or natural origin. However, these federal laws provide no security to the employees who are overweight and despite the fact that the weight discrimination is on the spree and a real issue, no concrete steps have been taken. A great step in this regard has been taken by the state of San Francisco by passing a law which aims at curbing this discrimination. According to the San Francisco law you can’t discriminate on the basis of weight of a person. The ordinance passed by the Board of Supervisors makes it prohibited to discriminate against a person on the basis of ''size.'' Although this ordinance prohibits employers from taking decisions regarding the hiring, promotions or firing of the employees on the basis of height or weight, meanwhile it also bans on-the-job persecution. Those who violate the law can be fined and can lead to the contract termination and can lose their business forever. But one can't file for the damages which leaves further scope for the discussion on this subject. Regarding the question this is a case of discrimination on the basis of her weight. In other words, this was a pure discrimination. An employer can’t discriminate or refuse to hire someone for not being potentially fit or feel that someone’s weight will render him client-less or his business may suffer. Thus this wasn’t a sound commercial decision based on her likely productivity, since it will lead to the anarchy. If we favor the decision of the employer then what would be our arguments regarding an employer who discriminates against minorities or women citing the same reason of productivity of the employee. Employers could always rationalize a rejection to hire people on grounds that hiring the certain class of people would be bad for their business. As the decisions taken to hire the people may not or may be discriminatory in the end as happens in most of the cases we need to have a solid laws at in place and in my view it is the only remedy to put an end to the discrimination at the workplace. The need it to fight on the political grounds to eliminate the loop holes whatsoever.