Obesity is a disability, rules the EU

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-30529791

Obesity is a disability, rules the EU


http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/79809000/jpg/_79809846_obesity480253021.jpg


Obesity can constitute a disability within European law, the EU's highest court has ruled.

The European Court of Justice was asked to rule on the case of a male childminder in Denmark who says he was sacked for being too fat.

The court said that if obesity could hinder "full and effective participation" at work then it could count as a disability.

The ruling is binding across the EU.

The case centres around childminder Karsten Kaltoft who weighs about 160kg (25 stone).

He brought a discrimination case against his employers of 15 years, Billund local authority, after he was sacked.

The authority said a fall in the number of children meant Mr Kaltoft was no longer required.

'No problems'

But Mr Kaltoft said he was dismissed because he was overweight.

Earlier this year he told the BBC that reports he was so fat he was unable to bend low enough to tie children's shoelaces was untrue.

Describing his work with children, he said: "I can sit on the floor and play with them, I have no problems like that.

"I don't see myself as disabled. It's not OK just to fire a person because they're fat, if they're doing their job properly."

The Danish courts asked the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to clarify whether obesity was a disability.

The ECJ ruled: "The Court finds that if, under given circumstances, the obesity of the worker entails a limitation which results in particular from physical, mental or psychological impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder the full and effective participation of that person in professional life on an equal basis with other workers, and the limitation is a long-term one, such obesity can fall within the concept of 'disability' within the meaning of the directive."

Rulings from the European Court of Justice are binding for all EU member nations.

The courts in Denmark will now have to assess Mr Kaltoft's weight to see if his case can be classed as a disability.

'Wider seats'

Jane Deville Almond, the chairwoman of the British Obesity Society, said obesity should not be classed as a disability.

She told the BBC: "I think the downside would be that if employers suddenly have to start ensuring that they've got wider seats, larger tables, more parking spaces for people who are obese, I think then we're just making the situation worse.

"[It is] implying that people have no control over the condition, rather than something that can be greater improved by changing behaviour."

Paul Callaghan, head of employment law at international law firm Taylor Wessing, said the ruling does not change UK law.

"The European Court of Justice has ruled that obesity itself is not a disability, but that the effects of it can be.

"As such, workers who suffer from, for example, joint problems, depression, or diabetes - specifically because of their size - will be protected by the European Equal Treatment Framework Directive and cannot be dismissed because of their weight."

So now you have a disability if you've had one too many McDonalds.

Y'know you can rightly criticise the crazy EU for this, but the maniacs in our courts & government are only one step behind.

Thoughts?

[AgnesIO]

Surely they are technically correct...

Personally, I don't think that means they deserve any free cash, BUT they are indeed disabled - through their own fault or not.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Surely they are technically correct...

Personally, I don't think that means they deserve any free cash, BUT they are indeed disabled - through their own fault or not.

Class it as disabled (as though it is not their own problem) and you open up a legal minefield.

[AgnesIO]

Class it as disabled (as though it is not their own problem) and you open up a legal minefield.

Definition: (of a person) having a physical or mental condition that limits their movements, senses, or activities.

According to that definition, whether you - or I - like it, an obese person IS disabled. There is no reference to being self-induced or not, so they are technically disabled. The only difference is, many obese people could find a cure by going for a run.

[Chippiewill]

If we don't class them as disabled then we've redefined disabled and we all know you don't like redefining words dan.

[buttons]

i feel like its a mockery to other disabled people. imagine being disabled and there's an obese person sitting somewhere you need to sit but they have the right because they're legally disabled. that's where problems start.


The ECJ ruled: "The Court finds that if, under given circumstances, the obesity of the worker entails a limitation which results in particular from physical, mental or psychological impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder the full and effective participation of that person in professional life on an equal basis with other workers, and the limitation is a long-term one, such obesity can fall within the concept of 'disability' within the meaning of the directive."

i understand the physical part but the mental and psychological impairment comes from stigma from society, not from their 'disability'.

thankfully it doesn't seem like fat people actually want to take advantage of the label as you often hear them saying they are just as capable of doing the same work as a slimmer person and they don't want to be classed as disabled or unable to work.

[Kyle]

i understand the physical part but the mental and psychological impairment comes from stigma from society, not from their 'disability'.
this is a catch all for all physical disabilities, not just obesity. it still stems from the disability itself.

about time this ruling was made imo, I think a lot of people are generalising A LOT (u shouldnt eat 2 much mcdonalds... rly?)and being very unfair to people who are at a clear disadvantage in society because of the chronic issues that their obesity has caused.

[The Don]

Schools should do more to make children aware of what a healthy diet is and how weight gain is caused (the body consuming a surplus of calories). They should also teach children what a healthy weight is because unfortunately many people seem to have a skewed idea of what being overweight looks like or the causes of it. At my school I was taught that to lose weight all you needed to do was exercise, which is fundamentally incorrect as exercising won’t help if you’re eating unhealthy meals everyday. It's clear parents are either unwilling or incapable of teaching children this themselves (shown by the ever increasing amount of obese children). I do fear that labelling obesity as a disability will take responsibility off the hands of those that are obese because most people associate a disability as something which cannot be helped whereas obesity, in almost all cases, is entirely self inflicted. Labelling it as a disability will see people using it as a scapegoat. This does nothing but perpetuate the general publics ignorance surrounding obesity and what causes it. Obviously obese people are at a disadvantage to healthy sized individuals and are, by the very definition of the word, disabled. I think labelling it as a self-inflicted disability is more appropriate rather than eliminating any self-responsibility by grouping it with genetic and hereditary conditions. Before anyone starts talking about obesity being caused by a slow metabolism or thyroid problems, I’m talking specifically about obesity caused by overeating. None of what I’ve said applies for the rare case where the weight gain is caused by an actual diagnosed health problem, such as an underactive thyroid.

- - - Updated - - -


Definition: (of a person) having a physical or mental condition that limits their movements, senses, or activities.

According to that definition, whether you - or I - like it, an obese person IS disabled. There is no reference to being self-induced or not, so they are technically disabled. The only difference is, many obese people could find a cure by going for a run.

This is the problem. There needs to be a way to distinguish self-inflicted disabilities from those which cannot be helped.

[GommeInc]

Actually the ECJ stopped short of making a decision on whether or not obesity is a disability - the case in question passed the decision making process back to the Danish Court from whence it came - suggesting that it is for the domestic court to decide if there was unfair dismissal - NOT the Court of the European Union. So no, the decision isn't binding on all EU nations seeing as a Danish Court cannot have binding precedent on the UK, for example.

It can give rise to discrimination in an employment context, was the actual decision. Employers should promote healthy lifestyles and provide support for obese employees. There was recognition of the possibility of it being a disability in certain situations (again up for the domestic courts to decide), but not full recognition.

EDIT:
"In some cases..." makes it pretty obvious obesity isn't a disability in general. It requires context - does obesity make it difficult for x to work? Then yes it is - which makes sense if it reduces mobility.

[Kyle]

Schools should do more to make children aware of what a healthy diet is and how weight gain is caused (the body consuming a surplus of calories). They should also teach children what a healthy weight is because unfortunately many people seem to have a skewed idea of what being overweight looks like or the causes of it. At my school I was taught that to lose weight all you needed to do was exercise, which is fundamentally incorrect as exercising won’t help if you’re eating unhealthy meals everyday. It's clear parents are either unwilling or incapable of teaching children this themselves (shown by the ever increasing amount of obese children). I do fear that labelling obesity as a disability will take responsibility off the hands of those that are obese because most people associate a disability as something which cannot be helped whereas obesity, in almost all cases, is entirely self inflicted. Labelling it as a disability will see people using it as a scapegoat. This does nothing but perpetuate the general publics ignorance surrounding obesity and what causes it. Obviously obese people are at a disadvantage to healthy sized individuals and are, by the very definition of the word, disabled. I think labelling it as a self-inflicted disability is more appropriate rather than eliminating any self-responsibility by grouping it with genetic and hereditary conditions. Before anyone starts talking about obesity being caused by a slow metabolism or thyroid problems, I’m talking specifically about obesity caused by overeating. None of what I’ve said applies for the rare case where the weight gain is caused by an actual diagnosed health problem, such as an underactive thyroid.

- - - Updated - - -



This is the problem. There needs to be a way to distinguish self-inflicted disabilities from those which cannot be helped.
Distinguishing disabilities from one another so that groups can take some sort of moral high ground just complicates things further. Obesity is a problem, self inflicted or not. It's known to cause a number of officially recognised impairments and as such gives rise to complications where employment legislation is concerned, what this would do is to increase opportunities for the fatties who are being discriminated against in work and employment situations because of their bmi. From what I understand, workers might be denied a job because they're fat and an employer assumes that they aren't up to it, but now employers will have to give good reasons for employing/denying individuals and do their best to accommodate for those of all shapes and sizes (literally) or face legal repercussions.

[Empired]

This is the problem. There needs to be a way to distinguish self-inflicted disabilities from those which cannot be helped.
But couldn't a lot of health problems be classed as self inflicted by those looking to be difficult? And technically they would have a point.

Examples being:
Someone loses mobility after a home firework display goes wrong --> shouldn't have been setting off fireworks in their garden should they.
Serious mental health problems following alcohol abuse --> their own fault for allowing themselves to become an alcoholic.
Anorexia (to the point where they can no longer live out a normal life) --> should eat more McDonalds shouldn't they. (Literally the exact opposite of what someone, can't remember who- maybe more than one person?, said in this thread.)

I don't agree with these but I'm sure plenty of people will try and bring up these arguments if a new "category" of disability, the "self-inflicted" disability, is created. I don't think I made my point very well but I'm struggling to explain.

Anyway I just don't know what to think about the idea of obesity being a disability. I agree with Jen that it does seem to belittle other disabilities but Kyle is also right that some people cannot help it and their obesity is caused by other reasons than just overeating.

[The Don]

Distinguishing disabilities from one another so that groups can take some sort of moral high ground just complicates things further. Obesity is a problem, self inflicted or not. It's known to cause a number of officially recognised impairments and as such gives rise to complications where employment legislation is concerned, what this would do is to increase opportunities for the fatties who are being discriminated against in work and employment situations because of their bmi. From what I understand, workers might be denied a job because they're fat and an employer assumes that they aren't up to it, but now employers will have to give good reasons for employing/denying individuals and do their best to accommodate for those of all shapes and sizes (literally) or face legal repercussions.

It's not so that they can take a moral high ground. Obesity can be cured by losing weight, multiple sclerosis can't be cured and should therefore be treated differently to the other.

- - - Updated - - -


But couldn't a lot of health problems be classed as self inflicted by those looking to be difficult? And technically they would have a point.

Examples being:
Someone loses mobility after a home firework display goes wrong --> shouldn't have been setting off fireworks in their garden should they.
Serious mental health problems following alcohol abuse --> their own fault for allowing themselves to become an alcoholic.
Anorexia (to the point where they can no longer live out a normal life) --> should eat more McDonalds shouldn't they. (Literally the exact opposite of what someone, can't remember who- maybe more than one person?, said in this thread.)

I don't agree with these but I'm sure plenty of people will try and bring up these arguments if a new "category" of disability, the "self-inflicted" disability, is created. I don't think I made my point very well but I'm struggling to explain.

Anyway I just don't know what to think about the idea of obesity being a disability. I agree with Jen that it does seem to belittle other disabilities but Kyle is also right that some people cannot help it and their obesity is caused by other reasons than just overeating.

You can't get your legs back if you've blown them off.

[Empired]

It's not so that they can take a moral high ground. Obesity can be cured by losing weight, multiple sclerosis can't be cured and should therefore be treated differently to the other.

- - - Updated - - -



You can't get your legs back if you've blown them off.
But the idea of a self-inflicted disability is not the same as being able to recover from a disability :o

[Kyle]

It's not so that they can take a moral high ground. Obesity can be cured by losing weight, multiple sclerosis can't be cured and should therefore be treated differently to the other.

- - - Updated - - -



You can't get your legs back if you've blown them off.
Weight can be controlled with proper eating and exercise, as can most mental illnesses and even some physical impairments with the correct treatment. Just because something can be regulated over a period of time does not mean that it is non existent within the current moment and doesn't cause social problems.

[The Don]

But the idea of a self-inflicted disability is not the same as being able to recover from a disability :o

Now we're arguing over semantics. A self-inflicted disability which can be cured by simply losing weight shouldn't be treated or labelled the same as the likes of ms or epilepsy.

[RyRy]

This law falls short of saying that if it's a genetic thing that's made you obese, then you should be classed as disabled.

If you've got a mental illness that makes you require more food or something, also something that should mean your obseity is a disability.

BUT IF YOUVE EATEN TOO MUCH OUT OF GREED, THAT IS NOT A DISABILITY. I find this rather disgusting and I honestly feel people are going to take advantage of it.

[Empired]

Now we're arguing over semantics. A self-inflicted disability which can be cured by simply losing weight shouldn't be treated or labelled the same as the likes of ms or epilepsy.
I agree with this but not sure losing weight is always as simple as people think it is. There are often mental implications behind overeating that make it very difficult to lose weight and then keep it off. Some people overeat because they're depressed and food (particularly "tasty" food like things with lots of sugar, saturated fat, or salt) temporarily cheers them up. The effect of the food then wears off and they become miserable again so they eat more to bring up their mood again. Same with people who eat to punish themselves or those who eat because they're lonely.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying these people should be considered the same as someone suffering with Parkinson's or someone who's paralysed but I definitely don't think losing weight is anything near "simple" for everyone. Of course it's just gonna be a case of exercise and healthy eating for some people, but that doesn't mean it'll be like that for everyone.

[The Don]

Weight can be controlled with proper eating and exercise, as can most mental illnesses and even some physical impairments with the correct treatment. Just because something can be regulated over a period of time does not mean that it is non existent within the current moment and doesn't cause social problems.

Which self-inflicted mental illnesses can be cured through eating a healthy diet and exercising? And they should also be grouped similarly to obesity if that's the case, i'm not specifically talking just about obesity, I think any self-inflicted disability should be treated similarly. Clearly not all disabilities are the same as each other and the severity of one disability is going to differ from the next, and the prognosis of one will be different to another. They should be treated as such rather than chucked under one blanket term. Of course it's not non-existent which is why I said it should be classified as a disability, just not grouped with other genetic and hereditary disabilities which are more severe than obesity and can't be easily treated in most cases by self-control.

- - - Updated - - -


I agree with this but not sure losing weight is always as simple as people think it is. There are often mental implications behind overeating that make it very difficult to lose weight and then keep it off. Some people overeat because they're depressed and food (particularly "tasty" food like things with lots of sugar, saturated fat, or salt) temporarily cheers them up. The effect of the food then wears off and they become miserable again so they eat more to bring up their mood again. Same with people who eat to punish themselves or those who eat because they're lonely.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying these people should be considered the same as someone suffering with Parkinson's or someone who's paralysed but I definitely don't think losing weight is anything near "simple" for everyone. Of course it's just gonna be a case of exercise and healthy eating for some people, but that doesn't mean it'll be like that for everyone.

Depression is the disorder in that example, obesity is simply a symptom of it.

[Empired]

Which self-inflicted mental illnesses can be cured through eating a healthy diet and exercising? And they should also be grouped similarly to obesity if that's the case, i'm not specifically talking just about obesity, I think any self-inflicted disability should be treated similarly. Clearly not all disabilities are the same as each other and the severity of one disability is going to differ from the next, and the prognosis of one will be different to another. They should be treated as such rather than chucked under one blanket term. Of course it's not non-existent which is why I said it should be classified as a disability, just not grouped with other genetic and hereditary disabilities which are more severe than obesity and can't be easily treated in most cases by self-control.

- - - Updated - - -



Depression is the disorder in that example, obesity is simply a symptom of it.
And still causes problems whilst the sufferer is obese.

The problem I have with lumping all disabilities together or lumping them into two different groups is that every disability varies from person to person. Two different people can have lost a leg but it could affect their lives completely differently. I've always thought personal troubles such as illnesses or disabilities should be judged on a case-by-case basis by the person's GP, and the Court should judge each case as it comes as well.

[Kyle]

Which self-inflicted mental illnesses can be cured through eating a healthy diet and exercising? And they should also be grouped similarly to obesity if that's the case, i'm not specifically talking just about obesity, I think any self-inflicted disability should be treated similarly. Clearly not all disabilities are the same as each other and the severity of one disability is going to differ from the next, and the prognosis of one will be different to another. They should be treated as such rather than chucked under one blanket term. Of course it's not non-existent which is why I said it should be classified as a disability, just not grouped with other genetic and hereditary disabilities which are more severe than obesity and can't be easily treated in most cases by self-control.

Depression is the disorder in that example, obesity is simply a symptom of it.

The group includes genetic impairments but isn't limited to them and a new branch for 'self inflicted' diseases only serves to morally separate those that have inherited what causes their disability from others. This is legislation, not a school playground, there's absolutely no need for it as it serves very little actual purpose.

We need to remember here that the law isn't giving a free pass to fat people, it's allowing them equal opportunity in the job market and beyond and it's going to reopen doors that were previously shut in their faces because of preconceived notions about their ability to perform tasks to a usual standard. A paraplegic in the past may have been disabled by their environment due to the need for a wheelchair in the past but the law now gives them far more access (with ramps and such as well as discrimination legislation) to a life that is considered normal. Why should obese people be denied a normal life and empowerment to become fitter?

I get the fat hat, people eat too much. Britain is looking at 50% obesity in 20 years and that's a problem. It's just not fair though to discriminate against them because of it. Why don't we just help them? There's no abuse here, everyone's working together.

[FlyingJesus]

It is a disability, it hinders people from being able to do certain things that an able-bodied person could. Doesn't mean we should pander to them and give fat people bonuses just for being fat - it reeks of certain emergency services and military groups (in the US specifically) dropping or abolishing physical requirements to be more inclusive even though it clearly means that these people will be less able to actually do the job to a decent standard, which is stupid - but it's certainly still right to class it as a disability. What's wrong is a system attempting to claim that the severity of any disability is the same as all others

[The Don]

The group includes genetic impairments but isn't limited to them and a new branch for 'self inflicted' diseases only serves to morally separate those that have inherited what causes their disability from others. This is legislation, not a school playground, there's absolutely no need for it as it serves very little actual purpose.

It’s got nothing to do with morals; obesity is categorically different to a disability such as epilepsy and should therefore be treated differently.


We need to remember here that the law isn't giving a free pass to fat people, it's allowing them equal opportunity in the job market and beyond and it's going to reopen doors that were previously shut in their faces because of preconceived notions about their ability to perform tasks to a usual standard.

Are you suggesting that a self-inflicted problem isn’t a good enough reason to pass someone over for a job? Should employers be forced to employ people with poor hygiene that never shower? Or drug addicts? What about people with facial tattoos? Obviously equal opportunities are important, but what you’re suggesting is not what equal opportunity is supposed to promote.


Equal opportunity is a stipulation that all people should be treated similarly, unhampered by artificial barriers or prejudices or preferences, except when particular distinctions can be explicitly justified.The aim according to this often complex and contested concept is that important jobs should go to those “most qualified” – persons most likely to perform ably in a given task – and not go to persons for arbitrary or irrelevant reasons, such as circumstances of birth, upbringing, friendship ties to whoever is in power,religion, sex, ethnicity, race, caste, or involuntary personal attributes such as disability, age, gender, or sexual orientation.

A disorder such as obesity can and will hinder performance in a wide variety of jobs. Again, if the obese person has a medical disorder causing the weight gain they should absolutely be afforded the same equal opportunities as anybody else. When their problem is reversible due to overindulgence they shouldn’t be afforded the same protection. It sets a terrible precedent where employers should be forced to hire not those best for the job but the under qualified or unfit for the role.


A paraplegic in the past may have been disabled by their environment due to the need for a wheelchair in the past but the law now gives them far more access (with ramps and such as well as discrimination legislation) to a life that is considered normal. Why should obese people be denied a normal life and empowerment to become fitter?

A paraplegic man isn’t in that position due to his lifestyle choices and can’t easily reverse the situation. You’re treating obesity as if it’s incurable or near impossible to reverse, it’s not. Why should society be forced to change to accommodate people who feel alienated due to a lack of self-control? If a person is too large to sit on the chairs that a restaurant provides should the restaurant be forced to purchase reinforced chairs so that they aren't 'discriminating' against the severely overweight? A paraplegic on the other hand can't exactly change their lifestyle and suddenly recover so of course society should accommodate to their needs because they can’t escape said situation. What you’re suggesting does the complete opposite of empowering them to become fitter. What you suggest simply enables their behaviour and provides no incentive to change. I don’t think they should be refused help or anything near that, but I definitely don’t think obesity should carry the same label as other disabilities, and calling it a disability provides a false connotation to the public about obesity, and will further distort the root cause which is overeating.


I get the fat hat, people eat too much. Britain is looking at 50% obesity in 20 years and that's a problem. It's just not fair though to discriminate against them because of it. Why don't we just help them? There's no abuse here, everyone's working together.

We should help them, nobody is arguing otherwise and nobody is arguing for abuse. I have been saying it should be treated as a disability, just a self-inflicted one. Calling something what it is does not make this ‘a school playground’. Refusing to employ someone because of their lifestyle choices is not discrimination, if that were the case people with face tattoos would be suing employers left and right. People suffering from obesity should be provided all the help they need to get them back into a healthy lifestyle. Obesity is as much of a disability as an addiction to drinking, gambling or drugs is. All of these should be classed as an illness/disability. At the same time employers shouldn’t be forced to employ anyone that shows undesirable characteristics such as a lack of self-control and the reluctance to live a healthy lifestyle, nor should people with genetic or hereditary conditions be trivialised by being grouped with people suffering from their own lack of will. It’s clear that there are different types of problems that people face and they should be grouped accordingly, not all chucked under one definition to avoid hurting peoples feelings.



It is a disability, it hinders people from being able to do certain things that an able-bodied person could. Doesn't mean we should pander to them and give fat people bonuses just for being fat - it reeks of certain emergency services and military groups (in the US specifically) dropping or abolishing physical requirements to be more inclusive even though it clearly means that these people will be less able to actually do the job to a decent standard, which is stupid - but it's certainly still right to class it as a disability. What's wrong is a system attempting to claim that the severity of any disability is the same as all others

The problem with that is if it is classed as a disability it will automatically pander to them because it provides them 'equal opportunity' meaning they can claim discrimination if passed over for a job due to their obesity. Categorising it with other addiction caused problems will solve this.

[FlyingJesus]

Discrimination laws about disability are stupid anyway, if you're passed over for a job because you're too fat to do it then that should be the company's prerogative, they want the best people and shouldn't be forced to have a load of folk who can't even do the job right just to keep quotas

[Kimmy]

I think it should depend on what caused the obesity to begin with. Yeah, it's a problem, but if you're obese and it's self-inflicted then surely you shouldn't be allowed all of the typically disabled rights?

[GommeInc]

Discrimination laws about disability are stupid anyway, if you're passed over for a job because you're too fat to do it then that should be the company's prerogative, they want the best people and shouldn't be forced to have a load of folk who can't even do the job right just to keep quotas
From the court judgment it is up for the domestic courts to determine if discrimination has happened and affected someone who is obese. If a fire service rejects an obese person from getting a job as a firefighter the fire authority can argue it was based on policy grounds (public health and safety is written in ECHR, EU and many domestic laws) so there shouldn't be an issue in this area. The judgment says there has to be good reason and the decision ultimately lies with the context of the job and the claim - so it's pretty flexible as far as law goes.

[DryRash]

I agree in a way because some people can't help it because of conditions that they may have or they might be doing it because they're sad or what ever reason it is. However I would disagree in the fact that some people do it through laziness. I can't remember but I am sure I saw a comment somewhere saying how if a obese person (Who is technically disabled through this law)
Was sat in a disabled seat on the bus and an actual disabled person who cannot stand for very long comes on and asks to sit there, I'm not to sure what would happen.