The Citizens Medical Center in Victoria, Texas, is banning applicants, who are overweight, from working at the facility.
The hospital policy states that an employee’s physique “should fit with a representational image or specific mental projection of the job of a healthcare professional" and be "free from distraction” for hospital patients.
Specifically, this means that employees must have a body mass index of less than 35 (which is 245 pounds for someone who is 5' 10"). Technically, an NFL football player could be in violation of this policy, even though his body is primarily muscle.
Hospital chief executive David Brown said the rule was needed because most of the patients are elderly: “The majority of our patients are over 65, and they have expectations that cannot be ignored in terms of personal appearance. We have the ability as an employer to characterize our process and to have a policy that says what’s best for our business and for our patients.”
DeDe Church, a Texas employment lawyer, said the policy is legal: “In Texas, employers cannot discriminate against employees because of their race, age or religion. Weight is not one of those protected categories.”
Citizens Medical Center is currently battling allegations of discrimination filed by three physicians of Indian descent based on a memo that Brown wrote.
I agree with Citizens Med. if your there to treat patients you should look like the appitamy of health.
John,
If the patient is clinically obese what is the standard for that? I also think they would qualify for some sort of disability therefore unemployable in most cases.
I do see the employers point and Texas is not the only state with these same type laws. What is important to note here though is this "DeDe Church, a Texas employment lawyer, said the policy is legal: “In Texas, employers cannot discriminate against employees because of their race, age or religion. Weight is not one of those protected categories.” What you posted is related to disabilities and the law in question is not.
In any case it our nation is obese overall and our healthcare system does need to change, from reactive healthcare to preventive healthcare. Even the POTUS healthcare plan does not address this issue as well.
Thoughts?
v/r
Al D'Adda
I haven't really got any further "thoughts". I noted the quote from Church, but thought it was worth researching, and pasting in a different legal opinion.
It's about time..I applaud the hospital for taking a stand to try and have their institution present itself as one who practices what they preach. Obesity produces many of the chronic diseases people deal with and to refuse to learn anything about nutrition and reduce their weight is puzzling. No one is forcing anyone to work at this hospital so for those who would like to - meet their requirements.
Clinical obesity can be regarded an illness in itself, or may be the symptom of another illness. With this in mind, I visited the website of a law firm with offices in Austin, San Antonio and Houston, Texas, where I read the following:
Disability Discrimination
San Antonio Disability Discrimination Lawyers
Every employee has a right to be judged on his or her ability to complete the tasks that come with the job description, not on a disability or perceived disability that has no significant bearing on the work that is required. If you have a physical or mental impairment that you believe has been used against you unfairly in hiring or promotion practices, you have legal protections under both Federal and Texas law.
Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Chapter 21 of the Texas Labor Code prohibit disability discrimination concerning:
- job application procedures, hiring, firing, advancement, compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment
- a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, or the perception that such an impairment exists
- failure to provide reasonable accommodations for a qualified employee or applicant with a disability, such as providing handicap accessible facilities, modifying work schedules, restructuring, or providing modified equipment or interpreters
Please know that employers are not required to make accommodations that constitute an "undue hardship" on the operation of the business. Undue hardship is defined as an action requiring significant difficulty or expense in relation to an employer's size, financial resources and the nature and structure of its operation. Also, an employer is not required to lower quality or production standards to make an accommodation.
If you have been subject to disability discrimination based on personal injury, illness, or disease, you must make your employer aware so that an opportunity is provided to make the necessary accommodations or changes to policy. If your complaints are ignored, you now have grounds to file a formal complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and pursue other legal options. To prepare the best case possible, you will want to have an experienced employment law attorney by your side through every step of the process.
It will be very interesting to see if this standard holds up in court. The hospital could not use a standard like this to block the potential employment of a secretary or a stock person. However, for their front line staff, a judge and a lawyer will have to duke it out.
Studies have shown all kinds of subtle biases related to physical appearance. Tall men tend to have higher salaries and to be promoted more quickly than their peers. Beautiful women tend to be promoted less into positions of higher responsibility. Short men have a hard time moving into management, etc. Proving that you have been a victim of biases like this is very difficult.
Physical appearance can be used as part of an employment decision if it is germane to the job. Dress codes are legal as are requirements around tattoos, piercing, body weight, hair length, facial hair, etc.
This has already been established through many federal lawsuits. State law can be more protective than federal law, but it usually isn't, and I wouldn't expect Texas to do anything more restrictive than the feds.
It's perfectly legal; what they don't tell you is that most airlines do the same thing (for ALL employees, not just flight attendants). The hospital is just making it a bit more clear.
In the end, all the hospital is doing is eliminating their pool of talent. Hiring based on looks / size vs. ability to perform essential job functions is what they want, then they'll miss out on some overweight people who spent their time studying hard.
But yeah, it's totally legal.
Elfination,
I would disagree with you on the following : "In the end, all the hospital is doing is eliminating their pool of talent. Hiring based on looks / size vs. ability to perform essential job functions is what they want,.."
The hospital will hire those who are qualified for the position as per the posting of the job. It would be counter productive to hire based solely on your description. They are listening to their customers, the patients; as well as keeping in mind hospitals are a business in America.
v/r
Al D'Adda
I still maintain they're shortening their list of potentially excellent candidates by making size a criterion. They are making size an instant dealbreaker, which means they are only entertaining the notion of hiring someone if they FIRST pass size muster.
Certainly there are requirements after that; they've got to hire people with qualifications, but they're eliminating potentially brilliant and well-performing candidates from their pool by making an initial screen based on size.
I am not arguing with them, I mean - it's fine.. But they ARE reducing their talent pool.