(no subject)

[asheris]

240-pound San Francisco woman rejected as aerobics teacher alleges bias

Talk about a misleading headline... the woman's 5'8" and has been about that weight most of her adult life. It's the Jazzercise organization that has rejected her, telling her she should go on a diet without carbs and do some body sculpting. Manwhile, her Jazzaercise instructor (the one who encouraged her to apply) is annoyed, saying the woman motivates more women because of her size.

She's also been doing high-impact aerobics for 15 years, and currently teaches low-impact aerobics classes six days a week. Sometimes one right after another.

In other words, she's probably far healthier (and possibly more fit) than the barbie-like Jazzercize-approved instructors.

Of course, being in San Francisco where there are statutes about discrimination based on height and weight, she doing the smart thing and suing their butts.

Comments

[meta.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure about this case. Yes, she has the skills to do the job, but at some point you have to ask whether it's reasonable not to discriminate on any basis, as the list of things you're not allowed to discriminate on gets longer and longer.

I mean, should a blind person be able to sue for discrimination because he's turned down for a job as a photographer, even though he knows all about the subject? What about a white man who applies for a job as head of the NAACP?

I think there's a line that can be drawn between things you can't change -- which it's unfair to discriminate on the basis of -- and things you can change, which it's (guardedly) fair to discriminate on the basis of.

[asheris.livejournal.com]

The company claims that "Jazzercise sells fitness," and that's why they're excluding her. Thing is, they're not judging her on her fitness level, which is great- they're judging her by the number on her scale, which has little to do with fitness levels. It's not that they don't want her because she can't do the job, she obviously can; they don't want her because she's "too big".

Their way of handling this was to give her some unhealthy diet recommendations so she could go on a crash diet to reshape her body by a deadline.

Consider how much the woman works out and that she leads several aerobics classes per week; add in the fact that at 38 she's been steady at that weight for most of her adult life. It quickly becomes obvious that in this case they are asking her to change something that she obviously doesn't need to change to do the job well.

(Which begs the question, why are these kinds of "health" groups so fixated on low weight and size numbers no matter how they're achieved, when it's far healthier to focus on metabolic health and fitness measurements? But that's a whole 'nother gripe/rant.)


Yes, there are limits. But those limits should be regarding things that actually impact your ability to do the job.
A fashion model could legitimately be required to fit into a size 6 (more like a -2 these days); that's part of the job description. In this particular case, the question appears to be whether a health instructor should be judged on her fitness level and ability (the job description), or on her ability to fit into a size 6 leotard.
Big difference, there.