Quote:
Originally Posted by SpiraMirabilis  There is no difference. The law doesn't make the distinction between working one job or working any job. ATP doesn't have to say 'You can't work any job because of your weight' because saying 'You can't work job X' is good enough. |
It's not good enough, because the law does make that distinction in 29 CFR 1630.2:
"The inability to perform a single, particular job does not constitute a substantial limitation in the major life activity of working." There was a case a few years back in which someone claimed to be disabled because their poor eyesight prevented them from being an airline pilot. The court rejected that allegation, citing 29 CFR 1630.2, since according to them airline pilot is a single job and not "a class of jobs or broad range of jobs." Are you asserting that someone who can't get a medical due to some relatively trivial issue, like kidney stones or 20/40 corrected vision, be considered disabled just because they can't work as an airline pilot? Even if they are perfectly healthy otherwise?
Consider this scenario: Let's say that vladi34 decides to become a bridge inspector instead. It turns out that he's physically unable to do it because he can't fit inside the structures. He is unable to do this one job due to a physical impairment. Can he claim to be disabled now? And here's the kicker: If so, now that he's officially disabled due to his weight, can he force ATP to accommodate him as a student? I suspect if that were the case, we'd have hundreds of thousands of unemployed "bridge inspectors" and the like on disability.
"I can't work job X." doesn't mean I'm disabled; Someone saying that I can't work job X doesn't mean they perceive me as disabled.
Quote:
| HOWEVER Even if you accept the proposition that it is only based on appearance then it very well still be a tort. Image related lawsuits are reaching an all-time high for employeers especially. It is only acceptable to discriminate based on appearance if the appearance constitutes a "bona fide occupational qualification." It obviously does not in this case due to the number of chunky pilots I've seen in the airlines.
|
I have no doubt that someone might sue an airline for doing that. Fortunately for ATP though, it's not prohibited to refuse to accommodate a non-disabled student based on their weight, while at the same time advising that student that someone else will discriminate based on his or her appearance. They are just saying what they think the airlines would do, not practicing it themselves. "Perceived" doesn't come into play in this scenario since disability is out of the picture.
At any rate, I'm running out of energy on this topic, so if this post doesn't sway you then I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. There's not much point in debating potential lawsuit outcomes anyway, and we do seem to be headed that direction. I do appreciate your reasoned arguments instead of the other ATP bashing, though.