We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
Texans wear the slogan "Everything's Bigger in
Texas" with pride. Whether it's big hair, big chicken
fried steak, or Big Tex, who says bigger ain't always better in
Texas? One Texas hospital tried to say otherwise, and soon ate its
words.
In April, the hospital made national news after it was sued over
its hiring policy barring potential employees who are obese. The
hospital quickly reversed its policy amidst outrage fueled by
national news sources denouncing the policy as discrimination
against the obese.
But, legally, this Texas-sized ban was not discriminatory. In
Texas, employers cannot discriminate because of race, color,
national origin, religion, sex, age or disability. However, like
the majority of other states, Texas does not ban weight
discrimination. Additionally, there is no federal law specifically
prohibiting obesity discrimination. Some obese individuals have
argued, however, that their weight can be considered a disability
for purposes of the ADA.
The ADA protects job applicants and employees from disability
discrimination. Under the ADA, to qualify as a person with a
disability, the applicant/employee must have a physical or mental
impairment that substantially limits one or more major life
activities. Working, among other things, is a major life
activity.
While obesity itself is generally not an impairment, morbid
obesity, meaning body weight of more than 100% over the norm, is a
disability if the applicant/employee shows the physical impairment
substantially limits a major life activity. Additionally, these
individuals may have other conditions related to their obesity,
such as high blood pressure, diabetes, or a heart condition, that
may be protected.
While heftiness is not, itself, a protected class, employers can
reduce their litigation risks by avoiding explicit weight bans.
After all, bigger employees may not always be better, but lawsuits
ALWAYS exact their pound of flesh.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
A female employee traveling for her employer met a "friend" and at her motel room with him became "injured whilst engaging in sexual intercourse when a glass light fitting above the bed was pulled from its mount and fell on her."
The "just cause" standard has long been a cornerstone of traditional labor law (under many collective bargaining agreements, employees generally cannot be discharged except with "just cause").
The Affordable Care Act provides employees who are not offered health coverage by their employers with the option of purchasing health coverage through new health insurance marketplaces (also known as health insurance exchanges) that will operate in every state.
Beginning in 2014, the Affordable Care Act will require "large" employers to offer their full-time employees healthcare coverage that meets certain standards or pay a penalty.
The Affordable Care Act’s employer shared responsibility rules will require large employers to make an offer of minimum essential coverage to at least 95% of their full-time employees or pay a non-deductible excise tax on all their full-time employees.
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines marriage at the federal level as a legal union between one man and one woman and excuses states from any obligation to recognize same-sex marriages recognized in any other state.
Employers have until October 1, 2013, to provide notice to current employees of coverage options available through the Health Insurance Marketplace established under the Affordable Care Act.
Issues After The Election
