ugly discrimination

NaeNae55

I found this article interesting. Do you think ugly should be protected?

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/28/opinion/sunday/ugly-you-may-have-a-case.html[/url]

Still Need Coffee

Wow. Research has long been out there that shows attractive people are more successful, but we have to stop somewhere with the protected classes.

I've seen this sort of "discrimination" in practice - we recently had an internal candidate who was passed over for a client-facing position, even though they probably had the requisite skills, because of the way they present themselves for work. Is it unfortunate? Absolutely. But should that be illegal? I don't think so.

I think there are positions where looks play a role in the hiring decision, subconsciously or not, and positions where looks don't matter in the least.

davids

Where will this end? Research shows tall people have an advantage in earnings over short people. Do we make being short a protected class? Smart people have an advantage in employment over dumb (ok, intellectually challenged) people. Do we make being stupid a protected class? How about protecting people with negative attitudes, lazy people, etc. They are all disadvantaged when it comes to employment.

Paul in Cannon Beach

If they are talking about extending protection to someone who happens to look like Danny Devito, then I think this is foolish. Alot of appearance and attractiveness comes from confidence and personality not physical appearance.

That said... there are people whose appearance could truly be a source of discrimination. There are people who are disfigured to the point where I could envision them being passed over for jobs solely because of their appearance.

I think protection for them makes sense.

NaeNae55

I vote for protection for short people!

tmperry

At first I thought this was humorous. Then I thought about it more. What if the "ugly" is caused by a physical deformity? And I'm not talking about someone who is born with big ears or an above average nose. I mean someone who has been burned and is scarred on the face or something like that. Would that not warrant protection?
Sorry, I took the funny and ridiculous and got all serious on ya!

Helena

In the case of people just not caring about the way they present themselves, (messy dressers, dirty clothes or hair, bad judgement in attire) those shouldn't be protected. I think the point about defects is valid but I can see that as a very slippery slope. People will take advantage of any situation if given the opportunity.

NaeNae55

[QUOTE=Helena;722909] People will take advantage of any situation if given the opportunity.[/QUOTE]

Hey! I resemble that remark! Being short has [B]nothing[/B] to do with my vote for putting short people in a protected class. :angel:

Are you interested in buying any land in Florida? I know of some swam...err...open coutryside for sale which I can get you for a small broker's fee. (twirling imaginary mustache...and yes Paul, it is imaginary).

Julie Athey

People who are deformed or disfigured would be protected from discrimination under the "regarded as disabled" provision of the ADA. I could also see a situation in which a person could be "ugly" due to a genetic condition, and that might also be covered by the ADA depending on the circumstances. In that situation, I am generally talking about something outside of the normal human appearance but not rising to the level of deformity or disfigurement.

SpartanFan

And how is "ugly" or "unattractive" defined and proven? If someone files a charge and says they did not get hired because of their looks, how will that be proven in court as the true reason for the denial of employment as it is so subjective? By whose definition of ugly is this measured against? What about degrees of ugly (the 'ol "butter face" description of someone..........you know, the one where someone asks how the girl looks and the reply is "everything about her is beautiful butter face....

tmperry

Good point SpartanFan!
If "ugly" were to become a protected class I see it playing out as such...the burden of proof still lies on the employee not the employer. The employee who is charging the discrimination would have to prove they're ugly (who the heck wants to do that???) and this would best be done through a comparison of current and past employees. If they can prove the employer only hired, retained, and/or promoted beautiful employees - they all met a certain type - no other employees had problems with adult acne or uneven ears or large noses - they were all in the same body type range, maybe all went to the same salon and shopped at the same stores, shared similar physical characteristics etc, then the charging employee may have an argument. But I would think that would be pretty hard to prove and that of course, is assuming, ugly became a protected class!
Just my thoughts on it!