Quote:
Originally Posted by Berkut  You don't know what the term "protected class" means as it relates to discrimination? |
Obesity is not a protected class but disability as defined by the American's With Disabilities Act is a protected class.
The EEOC handbook has expounded on the issue of the ADA and obesity:
Quote:
|
being overweight, in and of itself, generally is not an impairment. On the other hand, severe obesity, which has been defined as body weight more than 100% over the norm is clearly an impairment. In addition, a person with obesity may have an underlying or resultant physiological disorder, such as hypertension or a thyroid disorder. A physiological disorder is an impairment.
|
The major metric applied is whether or not it constitutes a
substantial limitation of a major life activity. Additionally another metric is discrimination based on a perceived disability, so while the OP may or may not fall inside the definition of a disabled person based on his weight alone -- if ATP believes he does then it is also a tort. Additionally I think Jim's phone call implies that he also thinks airlines would discriminate against him based on a perception of disability? I don't think they would because they actually have HR departments which understand this type of law.
The burden for the company/organization accused of discrimination is "the reasonable modification of rules, policies or practices." I think it would be reasonable to modify their policy on full fuel, I also think it would be reasonable to modify their practices by swapping a 150 for a 180 hp aircraft at that location, or to allow the OP to do training at a location that has a permenant 180hp aircraft. Jim's statement that such would require "administrative oversight" is not a very compelling argument IMHO. Every flight that ATP has operational control over requires "administrative oversight."