Job Bias Ruling Gives the Obese Limited Rights

The California Supreme Court ruled unanimously Thursday that employers cannot discriminate against overweight people if their girth is a physical handicap with medical origins.

But the decision protects obese people only if they can show that their weight meets the definition of a disability under state law or demonstrate that they were denied a job because of that perceived disability.

Justice Armand Arabian, writing for the court, said that weight may qualify as a protected handicap if medical evidence demonstrates that it results from a physiological condition “affecting one or more of the basic bodily systems and limits a major life activity.”

The decision stemmed from a discrimination claim by Toni Linda Cassista, a 305-pound woman who was denied a job at a Santa Cruz health food store in 1987. The store’s personnel coordinator subsequently told her that her weight had been a concern.

The high court said Cassista failed to prove employment discrimination because she did not present any evidence that her obesity constituted a physical handicap protected by law.

“It is not enough,” the court said, “that an employer’s decision is based on perception that an applicant is disqualified by his or her weight.”

Advocates for obese people were disappointed in the ruling, but the attorney for Cassista said the decision offers the overweight a “ray of hope.”

“If an employer discriminates against a fat person,” said San Francisco attorney Stefanie M. Brown, “they are taking the risk that the fat person will be able to establish an underlying medical reason for their condition.”

She said Thursday’s decision marked the first time the California Supreme Court has ruled that weight could be considered a protected handicap.

An overweight person probably could be considered legally disabled if his or her weight resulted from a thyroid disorder, Brown said, adding it was unclear whether a genetic predisposition or a slow metabolism also would meet the test.

“These are questions that are wide open,” she said. “They will have to be decided as the cases approach the courts and go through them.”

The law does not require employers to hire people whose physical characteristics would genuinely impair their ability to do a job. Lower courts, for example, have upheld the right of employers not to hire obese people as emergency workers.

Cassista, 44, decided to test the law after Community Foods, a Santa Cruz health food store, refused to hire her for a job that required working a cash register and lifting goods.

Cassista filed a complaint with the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, claiming she had been discriminated against because of her weight. The store shortly thereafter offered her a job, but she refused the position, saying the health food collective had not adequately “educated” itself about the problems of overweight people.

The state decided not to file a complaint against Community Foods, prompting Cassista to bring a lawsuit. During the trial, Cassista maintained that she was healthy and fit.

The trial judge told the jury that Cassista was required to prove that but for her obesity, she would have been hired. The jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of the store, which claimed she had been denied the job only because of her inexperience.

A Court of Appeal later reversed the judgment, ruling that the store had the responsibility to demonstrate that it would not have hired Cassista even if she were slim. Under Thursday’s ruling, an obese person bringing a lawsuit has to prove that a qualifying disability exists or that the job was denied because the employer perceived a disability.

After Cassista’s encounter with the store, Santa Cruz passed an ordinance prohibiting discrimination based on size, height or weight.

Laura Eljaiek, program director for the Sacramento-based National Assn. for Fat Acceptance, said she was disappointed with the court’s ruling.

Obesity is almost always an inherited condition, she said, “but that doesn’t mean I can find through testing some sort of cause.”

“It puts the onus on the fat person, rather than on the employer to prove that this person was not hired for some legitimate reason,” she said.

* SPERM RULING STANDS: Court affirms man’s right to bequeath sperm. B3