Obesity is an issue in America generally, and it is becoming a workplace challenge. Unfortunately, many in society find themselves incapable of shedding the pounds. I have written significantly about the challenges, but in this context, perhaps the path to progress is to quit admitting we are obese? See Obescity Again (January 2023). See also What's in a Name (August 2020); The BMI Conundrum (August 2022).
Changing the name or definition will not change the fact that obesity affects people. There are health risks. Obesity can Kill me? What Could be Worse? (March 2015); Comorbidity of Obesity (October 2021). Obesity is dangerous. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." Billy Shakespeare (Romeo and Juliet, 1591). Regardless of how we label obesity, it will nonetheless contribute to and predispose to health problems (according to Harvard).
Beyond denying obesity, there are many efforts at diminishing body weight. There is debate about the cause of our personal and collective gathering of weight. Disease or Choice (March 2023). There is advocacy for drastic approaches, including surgery. Obesity Yet Again (January 2023). There are billions (<$30) spent annually on fitness. And there are even some peculiar examples of procedures engaged to accomplish weight loss. Stool Transplant (October 2019). That is right, people tried feces transplants, but apparently, that did not help.
And obesity has long been on the scope of employers. See How will risky Behavior and Choices Affect Employment Decisions (April 2013). For more than a decade, we have heard that employers will consider predisposition questions and issues in the hiring process. There is the risk of health issues associated with obesity. Should employers be able to choose whether to shoulder that risk, the same as they might if I am a smoker, a skydiving enthusiast, or pose other risks? I have heard no one persuasively argue that discrimination against smokers should be illegal (dope or tobacco).
Well, not so in New York City. That glistening city in the north is a paragon of such policy failures as rodent control, Homelessness, crime, and more. The New York Times recently inquired "If you were mayor, what problems facing your community would you try to solve?" That expose discussed multiple pressing issues. It outlined a city with many large challenges. The Times ignored or forgot being fat.
Despite not making the Times' list, according to British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), the big issue in the Apple is obesity. More specifically, employment and accommodation decisions based on obesity. With a smorgasbord of challenges before it, Gotham decided that the most important, the one to deal with now, is that employers are (apparently) less willing to hire the obese. The solutions (hopefully) that were considered included weight loss and better health. But, in the end, the solution selected was to strive to force employers to accept the risks that may come with hiring the obese.
The BBC contends that this is a "growing movement" equating obesity "with race and gender." There was a time when we all assumed that those two were immutable and there have historically been great efforts in this country to prevent discrimination based on such characteristics. More recently, we have learned that in the perspectives of some both gender and race may be more changeable than we thought.
Well, the philosophers are perhaps thinking that way. And don't try to tell Rachel Dolezal, Jessica Krug, or Martina Big any different. Those examples are interesting and bring new meaning to mom's assurances when we were kids: "you can be anything you want when you grow up." You may disagree with the fluidity arguments, and that is your right also. Is it fluidity or is it appropriation? Ask St. Louis, The Academy Awards, or even cooks. There is not unanimity on the appropriation discussion.
There is likely room for discussion of whether race, gender, and obesity share. Some contend they should be treated similarly, but there seems doubt and discussion in some quarters. As those discussions change, protections from federal laws such as Title VII. and Title IX. seem to be in flux. Women and other minorities remain challenged.
But the "Apple in decay" (Foreigner, Long, Long Way from Home, 1977) is seemingly accepting that obesity is immutable, or is at least worthy of protection from discrimination. It asserts that there is a stigma attached to being large, and that weight discrimination delivers "pervasive stigma," "bias," "lower wages," and other "sharp costs." One advocate asserted that "weight discrimination was 'a silent burden people have had to carry.'" The burdened assert that being of larger size impacts a variety of activities.
As a recovering "healthy" person (Oh, PC, you got me there with an antonym used coyly), I can tell you size does impact your life. Yes, the obese balk at being referred to with a variety of words. Their preference is to be called "healthy." Would anyone ever suggest that we refer to smokers instead as "healthy?" There is a move afoot to use that term for the obese. Perhaps some are merely healthy, and others are really healthy, or morbidly healthy? Do such word choices help us with battling the health risks or does this merely ignore the risks?
There are allegations of the "healthy" with challenges in finding accommodating "seating at restaurants and theatres," discrimination in housing, and even "weight limits on the city's bike sharing program." Such arguments led to the imposition of the new city ordinance banning weight discrimination (I guess you should buy bigger, stronger bikes, chairs for your business, etc.). This is the same city that solved obesity years ago by banning large soft drinks. Can I get a "Team Gulp? (July 2014).
With a decade of smaller sodas, can this weight challenge still a thing there? They claimed the smaller cups would alleviate the problem. It was a weak-minded solution that blamed the food instead of those that consume it. The soda is not making us obese, it only affects us when we chose to drink it. The same may be said of candy (they never banned the large chocolate bars), and an assortment of other foods.
Maybe it is a more widespread challenge. The BBC reports that "Michigan has barred workplace discrimination based on weight since 1976," but it identifies no other state laws in this regard (It notes bills have been introduced elsewhere, but a bill is but a bill). There is mention of discrimination bans in "a handful of other cities," but the two specifics are "San Francisco and Washington DC." Those are another two municipalities that perhaps have no larger challenges to tackle? (Crime, homelessness, feces on the streets, retail flight). It is perhaps hard for anyone to seriously consider recommending we look to those two as urban management leaders.
The effort in New York is led by the "National Association for the Advancement of Fat Acceptance," NAAFA. I for one am not at all sure that this use of the "F" word is PC or acceptable. My righteous indignation is past simmering. This effort against F__ discrimination, the advocates say, is "a larger conversation of framing this beyond health." They say body size is "not a health issue. It's a civil rights issue." In the end, it is "about if people are safe and protected and have the right to be in spaces."
I am persuaded by the arguments personally. I can buy that it is more important to accept these risks and accommodate size. Let's drop the efforts at fighting the weight and just be more accepting and accommodating. However, it is harder to negotiate with diabetes, heart disease, stroke, and cancer. We can be as accepting as we want of the weight, and it will continue to kill people.
In our new world, perhaps people impacted by one of these diseases will simply explain to the disease how unfair, discriminatory, and hurtful they are. Perhaps if we all look down on these diseases, they will just leave? Maybe we can legislate these diseases and make it illegal for obesity to impact diabetes? It sounds ridiculous, but no more so than regulating the size of soda cups (some critics back then cynically suggested people would buy two cups of soda to beat the size limit. for whatever reason, the cup-size legislation did not end the obesity).
There is debate as to what causes obesity. Many claim it is a disease, many espouse it is a symptom of various disease, and some perceive it to be mathematical (calories consumed less calories burned equals either gain or loss). There is much to unpack there. Certainly, there are some that are not able to maintain an ideal weight despite their many efforts. I know some that cannot do so even with the help of various pharmaceuticals and surgery. I commiserate with them, understand them, and wish we could be better to them. I was "them" for many years.
But, for employers in the Big Apple, there is now the potential for employers to be sued for discrimination "based on 27 characteristics" according to the BBC (without further illumination). A quick check of the New York City Equal Employment Practice Commission revealed the following 15 listed. It is not clear what the other 12 might be (although obesity is seemingly on the way).
"age, race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, military status, sex, disability, predisposing genetic characteristics, familial status, marital status, or status as a victim of domestic violence."
How this new effort will integrate into the fabric of employment in New York will be an interesting process to observe. Whether the NAAFA perceives an improvement in the situation of those who identify as obese "healthy" will be interesting as well. Will other states or cities follow the path as hoped and encouraged by this Big rotten Apple effort? Or is this just another cup limitation? Time will tell.
For me, I have decided to drop ten pounds myself and see if that improves my lot in life. I have found late in life that the math works for me. It is painful to walk daily, to regularly deny myself foods I love, and to persistently watch my calories. That said, it does not mean the math works for everyone. Certainly, obesity is at least a medical result or symptom of many diseases that disrupt the math, the motivation, and/or the results. Some people cannot lose weight and that must be acknowledged and accepted. They should not be faulted for that. But, should employers be forced to accept those burdens?
It is beyond doubt that we should not mistreat people based on immutable characteristics. There is a seemingly increasing willingness to discount the immutability of various characteristics. And there is room to discuss whether the government is capable of legislating away untoward or undesirable behavior. How many burdens must an employer carry in striving to keep a business afloat, employment available, and a market viable?
Or, will legislative efforts at accommodation merely drive business from particular communities? There is much to unpack, and there are likely no easy answers. In a society, there will be interests that compete. For now, there is a new right for the "healthy," and time will tell. Can government legislate acceptance? Will people accept weight as immutable?
