Weight Discrimination Paper
...ise. This 2002 case details an aerobics instructor who at 5’8” and 240 pounds was deemed by the corporation too large to own a Jazzercise franchise. As a result of the findings by the Committee, Jazzercise relented, offering Portnick a franchise (Size Discrimination, 2002). A second case filed at the EEOC against the Ralph Lauren Corporation alleged the company discriminated against minorities on the basis of appearance, preferring to hire blond haired, blue-eyed workers. This case also found after a two-year investigation that the company was practicing discrimination based upon the applicant’s appearance (Lawroom, 2004). However, one constant throughout all discrimination cases is the element that an adverse decision is made based on an individual characteristic, subtle or not, of an employee or job applicant that somehow singles out that characteristic as the basis for the adverse action. In the present case, the decision to refuse to hire Victoria appears to be based on the employer’s subjective decision that she is too heavy and perhaps not attractive to potential customers. Another person, in another setting, may think her weight is irrelevant. The important distinction is not the weight itself or whether Victoria could adequately perform the required job duties, but that the employer used her weight as the basis for the decision not to hire. As was pointed out in Connecticut v Teal, (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman (2004), it is not equal employment that people are after, it is the opportunity for equal employment. This is what constitutes equity in the workplace. In an age discrimination case, the employee must prove (1) he/she is in a protected class, (2) he/she was terminated or demoted, (3) he/she was doing her job well enough to meet her employer’s legitimate expectations, and (4) others in the protected class were treated more favorably (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, (2004). A person’s age is indisputable so the protected class is relatively easy to determine. In a weight discrimination case, weight is often subjective so the identification of the protected class is more difficult as might be the case with color discrimination. Weight, like color, plays a subtle, though not necessarily conscious, role in how society deals with others and employers must be mindful of the subtleties (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2004). For the protected category of race under Title VII, prima facie evidence of discrimination must prove that the employee was denied employment opportunity as a primary consequence of the employee’s race, as in the case of Vaughn v. Edel (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2004, p. 187). Race as a protected class is the dominant category for historical case law, as Title VII was primarily enacted as a response to discrimination against blacks in America. Gender as well as sex discrimination also remain protected classes under Title VII. Prima facie hurdles in these two categories require proof that the actions taken by the employer had some relation to the individual’s age (must be over 40 years of old to begin the pursuit of prima facie documentation) or sex. Ross v. Double Diamond, Inc (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, p.282), is a case which depicts sex discrimination per Title VII requirements, and Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, p.222) in which a female associate who was refused admission as a partner in an accounting firm delivered enough evidence to surmount the prima facie hurdle and won her case against the firm. Like other areas of discrimination, weight may be affected by an employer’s bona fide occupational requirement (BFOQ). For instance, a specific national origin may be required in an Italian or Chinese restaurant (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2004). An undiscoverable medical condition in the majority of persons over 80 years of age might justify an employer’s BFOQ. The employer’s refusal to place those over 80 in the position of a school bus driver would satisfy the proof of such a BFOQ (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2004). Weight, like age, may be the basis for a school district’s BFOQ. In Webb v Swartz Creek Community Schools, (2001 Mich. App. LEXIS 742), an applicant for a job opening as a school bus driver was denied the position because of her size (5’8” and 320 pounds). The school district’s occupational requirement that an applicant for the position of a school bus driver be able to fit in the driver’s seat was deemed reasonable. Since Ellen Victoria firmly believes that Jazzercise Fitness Center has discriminated against her because of her physical appearance and or body weight, she may file a discrimination complaint with the state of Michigan’s regulatory agency. The state of Michigan will in return notify the owners of Jazzercise Fitness Center that a discrimination complaint has been filed against them and Jazzercise Fitness Center will have the following options to remedy the situation: (1) Choose to Work Out a Good Will Solution - As a quick remedy for making a gross mistake, Jazzercise Fitness Center could offer to refund Victoria’s Jazzercise instructor certification-training fee or, Jazzercize can offer Victoria the vacant Jazzercise Instructor position at a fair salary or hourly rate. (2) Choose to Resist Victoria’s Demands – This means that Jazzercize would go through the State of Michigan’s claim process. If this procedure is like the federal EEOC process, then the employer would have the following options: Settlement –The state of Michigan will work directly with Jazzercise Fitness Center and Victoria to come to a financial compensation agreement without admitting fault. In essence, all discriminatory charges would be dropped against Jazzercise Fitness Center if an agreement can be made and Jazzercise Fitness Center would financially compensate Victoria to prevent her from bringing suit. Mediation – Mediation is an informal process in which a neutral third party assists the opposing parties to reach a voluntary, negotiated resolution of a charge of discrimination. In essence, mediation looks for win-win solutions and prevents the need for lengthy litigations. In the event that Jazzercise Fitness Center and Ellen Victoria can not reach a settlement agreement, a third party will be engaged to assist in finding a happy medium. If Jazzercise Fitness Center still refuses to comply with the State of Michigan, the regulatory agency will attempt a final negotiation with Jazzercise Fitness Center before pursuing litigations. If Jazzercise Fitness Center does not comply after this last attempt, they would be subject to a lengthy litigation process. In order to avoid the potential for discrimination lawsuits in the future, Jazzercise Fitness Center should make it a policy to train their management team and front line st...