Comments on: Obesity, disabled rights and the EEOC

By: Tom T.

Tom T. — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 00:24:54 +0000

I’m just reading the facts of the case: He apparently did the job fine at 450 (he was 405 when fired), he worked 50-60 hours per week in the month after the accident, and his injury was not cited as an impairment to his ability to the same job at the same weight as he was before. The facts don’t appear to me to support the doctor’s ruling, which suggests to me that the company made the decision to get rid of him and then looked for a fig leaf for it.

Look, I think the court decision was correct; there’s no ADA claim here, and he’s an employee at will, so they can fire him whenever they choose. I just think the company acted unpleasantly.

By: Ron Coleman

Ron Coleman — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 20:21:18 +0000

Tom, you don’t see the difference between 340 and 450 pounds? You don’t think it even remotely possible that some margin was passed in the range between those weights, which is approximately the weight of an entire fit female person? You are not impressed by the fact that his weight increased by a third — you call those changes “suddenly”?

By: markm

markm — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 11:57:21 +0000

Tom: If his injury prevents him from working, he has a case for workman’s compensation – which is a mandatory insurance program – but not to keep the job he cannot do, and not for an ADA suit. It sounds like it was obesity and lack of exercise, not the knee injury, that was disabling him. And whose fault was *that*?

By: Tom T.

Tom T. — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 08:25:34 +0000

They hired him at 340 pounds, he worked without incident for five years, during which time his weight ranged up to 450 pounds, and when he becomes injured he’s suddenly unfit for the job. What a joy that company must be to work for.