I decided to take a 6 month course in order to become a Certified Nutrition &  Wellness Counselor,  and to start my own weight loss counseling practice after being told I could not work for a popular weight loss company because I weighed like - 10 pounds too much                                                        [according to thier silly "cookie cutter" - "look-ist"  standards]-even though my waist size is within the proposed healthy limit for women.

I am also no longer in the "obese" weight range and I am not dependant on any medications for blood pressure, cholesterol or blood sugar.

So why didn't I  just lose the 10 pounds and go to work for the popular weight loss company? Because it's just the prinicipal of the thing.

I am happy with the way I look and feel, and I will not allow anyone to impose thier standards on me.

What was even more hilarious during that interview was that while the very thin man [who was about 10 years younger than me] was spewing out all of these crazy comments about how I needed to lose more  weight before I could be graced with his presence every morning, he also divulged the fact that his cholesterol was off the charts...[mine is rarely over 120 - even at my heaviest weight] -which means it's highly likely that I will outlive that fella by decades if not centuries.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that being thin is not all that great if your arteries look like a 75 year old sewer pipe.

Anyway, as you can see, I was not exactly defeated when  I realized that  I had been a victim of fat discrimination once again - by one of the most popular weight loss counseling companies in the world who should be more sympathetic to persons with a weight problem and more flexible with thier weight limits.

Furthermore, when it comes to hiring, weight loss companies should be looking at the total picture when it comes to health-not just one aspect of health information such as weight- afterall,  do I really  want a group leader to  advise me about nutrition when his or her blood work looks 10 times worse than mine?     I think NOT!


But high cholesterol is inherited? Yes, and so is the tendency to be overweight.

A weight problem is aggravated by refusal to count calories, stay within  caloric limits for each particular activity level- and refusal to get enough exercise.

Cholesterol is  aggravated by eating insistance on eating too much   meat and egg yolks rather than complementary plant-source proteins like lentils and whole grains. I've not met a vegetarian yet who had high cholesterol-but it's possible that they do exist I suppose.


But weight loss groups are about losing weight -so the leaders should be thin?

My philosophy is that weight loss groups should be about weight loss as a result of healthy eating habits- which should result in normal cholesterol levels and blood sugar-not about having to LOOK a certain WAY.


Again, when it comes to weight loss- I'm a HEALTH-ist - not a LOOK-ist !!!


Anyway, I just considered the source and kept marching forward- and I hope others will do the same when confronted with fat discrimination during job interviews.


However, if you are being discriminated against in your current work place  due to your weight- and hoping to be legally vendicated, I hate to be the one to tell you that the statistics are bleak.


Feel free to visit the links below to learn more about fat discrimination.


how to recognize fat discrimination



the obese feel more discrimination



court cases in the news




ruling AGAINST a person who sued for fat discrimination:

The Supreme Court of California ruled in September 1993 against plaintiff Tony Cassista who sued Community Foods for refusing to hire her because of her weight. The Court said that if she had said she was disabled because of her weight (which she said was not the case), she would have been protected under California law. (Cassista v. Community Foods, Inc., 856 P.2d 1143 (Cal. 1993)


ruling IN FAVOR of a person who sued for fat discrimination:


Rulings in favor of those charging weight discrimination:

The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled (November 22, 1993) for plaintiff Bonnie Cook, who sued a Rhode Island home for the mentally disabled for refusing to rehire her because of her weight, even though she had performed the job satisfactorily in the past. The Equal Employment Opportunities Commission filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the plaintiff, saying that morbid obesity, even if voluntary, is a protected disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act. (Cook v. State of Rhode Island Dept. of Mental Health, Retardation and Hospitals, 783 F. Supp. 1599 (D.R.I. 1992))

The Rhode Island Court of Appeals decided in favor of plaintiff Sharon L. Russell who sued Salve Regina College for expelling her for not losing weight. The State of Rhode Island appealed the case to the Supreme Court of the United States, which, in 1990, returned the case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration as a simple contract dispute. The Appeals Court again found in favor of Russell, who was awarded lost tuition and other expenses. The decision was not based on the question of the legality of weight discrimination. Russell v. Salve Regina College.

A California jury ruled (November 9, 1990) in favor of plaintiff Jesse Mercado, who was fired by the Los Angeles Times for being too fat. The Times argued that Mercado's obesity was transitory or voluntary, but the jury found that he was protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, which includes physical handicap and medical condition as protected categories.

A Maryland Court ruled in October, 1990 in favor of four plaintiffs (Dorothea Goodman, Carlissa V. Hawkins, Jacqueline Wilson, and Betty Wright) who were refused jobs as bus drivers by the Maryland State Transit Authority for being over their height/weight limit. The Maryland Human Relations Commission argued their case for eleven years in the courts, which finally ruled that the Transit Authority had perceived them as handicapped whether or not they were, and that they had been unfairly discriminated against. They were given the opportunity to reapply for the jobs.

A New Jersey Administrative Law Judge ruled in December, 1988 in favor of plaintiff Joseph Gimello, who was fired by Agency Rent-a-Car for his weight, even though all previous evaluations had been excellent. His case was argued on the basis that he was physically disabled and therefore covered under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. He won back pay, attorneys' fees, and $10,000 for pain and suffering. (Gimello v. Agency Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc., 594 A.2d 264 (NJ Super. A.D. 1991).

The North Dakota State Personnel Board ruled in early 1988 in favor of plaintiff Melvin Hansen, who was fired as a weight inspector for the Highway Patrol because he was too fat. The Board said: "This ruling underscores that state employees cannot be fired because of obesity if [their weight] does not interfere with job performance".









This free website was made using Yola.

No HTML skills required. Build your website in minutes.

Go to www.yola.com and sign up today!

Make a free website with Yola