Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

H. 1844: the height/weight anti-discrimination law

By

H. 1844: the height/weight anti-discrimination law

Please support this much-needed civil rights law.  People of all sizes can get hit by discrimination based on body size. It’s real. It’s not okay. Without a law, we have no protection. Size discrimination can be used to mask queer discrimination.  This is especially true of the lesbian and transgender communities.

The only other places to offer such a law: San Francisco, Santa Cruz, Washington DC, Madison

Wisconsin, and Michigan.

You want to help make history?

If you live in Massachusetts:

1. Call your state Representative: 617 722 2000 (Ask to be directed based on your zip code.)

– Ask how the Rep. will vote for H. 1844, how they will support this historic legislation.

2. Come to the crucial hearing! Tell your story!

Tuesday, March 25, 2pm

State House, room A-2, in Boston

For questions, contact Beth Kenny:  bethkenny411@yahoo.com

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Size discrimination can be used to mask queer discrimination.

    <

    p>I don’t think it can.  I think you’re trying to bait people in this blog into supporting you by going after sore spots.  

  2. I advertise and two candidates apply, and I hire the thinner of the two.  That means the fat one can sue me for discrimination!?

  3. Here is the bill itself, as a .pdf

    <

    p>http://www.mass.gov/legis/bill…

    <

    p>It is not “dubious”.  If two candidates apply for a job, and the one with better credentials [more experience, more education] is obese, the less qualified candidate gets the job – that IS handicap discrimination.

    <

    p>The discrimination based on weight and height is real, folks.  Various investigators have put on “fat suits” and been shocked at how differently they are treated.

    <

    p>As a person who is both 4’10” and not thin, believe me, I have experienced this first hand.  While “putting on a suit” helps, a suit does NOT fix the problem.

    <

    p>As a practical matter, no one can hide their weight or height.  An applicant does not have to disclose, and an employer may not ask, about “most” handicaps.  Height and weight are in view.

    <

    p>Short folks like me get treated as children even well into adulthood – and hate it.

    <

    p>Fat is treated like a moral issue when it is an organic, genetic health issue.  We all know people who can eat as much as they like, and stay an average, “normal” size.

    <

    p>Well, thyroids fail.  For ethnic and genetic reasons, body sizes differ.  It is NOT a moral issue any more then sexual orientation is a moral issue, or a matter of choice.

    <

    p>Medical research is making clear that weight/body mass are NOT the result of being a pig in how one eats.

    <

    p>And height?  Please.  I am no more in control of the fact that I am shorter than Frodo the Hobbit than I am in control of the weather.

  4. There are major problems with this legislation. First of all, the other forms of prohibited discriminaton (e.g. race, sex, ancestry, sexual orientation) describe classes of persons that have been at the recieving end of very clear, specific, and systematic discrimination over centuries. While perhaps correct that height/weight can be used to discriminate in the job context, the history of discrimination for these groups is not the same, which is why the discrimination law focuses on these historically discriminated-against groups.

    <

    p>Secondly, attributes like race and ancestry are objective characteristics that allow for clearer-cut legal cases. Whether someone is black or white is generally easier to establish than whether someone is too short/tall or over/underweight. This is important because an African-American suing for discrimination in hiring has to prove only that s/he was discriminated against based upon this (objective) characteristic, whereas someone claiming weight discrimination would also likely have to prove that his/her weight is so under/over the average (whatever this means) that suing for weight discrimination even makes sense at all.

    <

    p>Finally, it is likely true that people who are not physically attractive are more likely to be discriminated against in hiring than those who are. Why not include a prohibition against discrimination based upon looks? How about discrimination against those with high voices? It’s unclear why or where this slippery slope would logically end.

  5. …that no amount of specificity would convince you or define this class of folk who have been and currently receive discriminatory treatment, and second class citizenship?  Would you need an amendment to the bill that says “under five feet tall and over 200 pounds”?  

    <

    p>Mind you, the shorter one is and the heavier one is, the worse one is treated; similarly, some African Americans and nonwhites are treated as whites because visually, they pass and unless they self-disclose, are not noted to be African American.  Does that mean that African Americans should not, as a class be protected?

    <

    p>I would say that someone who is under five feet tall and at the same time, over 200 pounds would receive discriminatory treatment in many, if not all situations.

    <

    p>I am not at all sure that someone who is 5’5″ and weights around 200 pounds would receive the same number of discriminatory responses.

    <

    p>On the other hand, someone who is 5’5″ and weights 400 pounds probably is subject to about the same level of discriminatory treatment as someone under five feet tall, but over 200 pounds.  Not having lived either life experience, I have to rely on the life stories told in the context of these folks’ lives, basically anecdotal.

    <

    p>I consider this would make an interesting study, to be sure.

    <

    p>Further, there is no direct relationship between “being attractive” and “being competent” or being, in the terms of a particular culture and time, “unattractive” and being unable to fulfil a job.

    <

    p>Certainly, in a “perfect world” it should be the ability to do the job best that leads to a hire – and whether or not one is attractive [usually a subliminal sexual matter] should not determine something like loan eligibility.

    <

    p>However, as to whether ANY legislation could remedy this sort of problem – truly I do not know.

    • My overall suggestion is that this bill will not work — certainly, it will not work nearly as easily as it would for objective criteria such as race.

      <

      p>How would the courts deal with lawsuits brought under this statute? It seems like they would have to define height and weight in a certain way. It is easy to say that a black man is suing, claiming racial discrimination, because it is clear in the vast majority of cases that the man is black, and society has had a history of discrimination against African-Americans. But how would the courts define “short”? If a 5’3″ woman sues because of height discrimination, is she a “short” woman? She’s short compared to probably 99% of men, but she’s pretty average compared to most women. A 4’10” woman is short compared to the average, but is it “short enough” to qualify for anti-discrimination protection? These are questions that the courts would have to deal with, and I’m not sure how they could in an adequate way. You mention under 5 feet tall and over 200 pounds, but to choose those have a measure of arbitrariness that is not a problem with the traditionally protected categories.

      <

      p>

      However, as to whether ANY legislation could remedy this sort of problem – truly I do not know.

      <

      p>I do not think it can, at least if we’re talking about subject criteria such as “too short”, “too under/overweight”, or “too unattractive.” To be clear, I am not denying that there may be discrimination in hiring on the basis of a person’s weight or height. What I am disputing is the idea that this particular bill is sensible, either theoretically or practically.

      • and my kids can eat peanuts off my head.  However, my spirit is at least 7 feet tall, which helps “average” it all out. When I read the Herald today, I realized that I was a mere 4 1/2 inches taller that then woman being interviewed.  

        <

        p>I think you have a point Hoya – how short is too short?  How heavy is too heavy?  Are we going to take BMI indexes next?  Given that increasing girth of America anyway – would a BMI of say, 40, be the definition, or the real obesity benchmark of 35?  That means you couldn’t fire a boatload of people.  

        <

        p>I think this is going to be very problematic to execute.  What do you do with a lackluster performer who says he/she’s fired because of shortness?  Or obesity?  

        <

        p>

Archives