Appearance Matters: A Proposal to Prohibit Appearance Discrimination in Employment

The consideration of appearance in employment decisionmaking context is prevalent and widely accepted. Nonetheless, statutory protection against such discrimination remains limited. Federal protection applies only to claims related to already-protected categories of discrimination, including disability, race, color, religion, sex, national origin, and age. Only one state and a small number of cities and counties explicitly prohibit appearance discrimination in employment. This Comment argues that consideration of appearance in employment decisions is not justified, rational, or beneficial to society unless a bona fide occupational qualification or reasonable business purpose exists. States should adopt statutory protection for appearance to.protect otherwise qualified applicants and employees from arbitrary and harmful discrimination. This protection will promote the practice of hiring and retaining employees based solely on relevant qualifications and criteria. It also will assist in repairing the inequities that result from the legitimizing of appearance discrimination in employment, as well as in society as a whole

Fighting for a (wide enough) seat at the table: weight stigma in law and policy

Few jurisdictions provide legal protection against discrimination on the basis of weight despite evidence of pervasive inequalities faced by fat individuals in employment, healthcare, education, and other domains. Yet, in the last two decades, advocacy efforts in several countries aimed to remedy this situation have been largely unsuccessful. We present a cross-national conceptual analysis of three significant anti-discrimination developments regarding weight in the United Kingdom, the United States, and Iceland, respectively, to highlight how the creation, implementation, and enforcement of legal and policy mechanisms that prohibit weight discrimination ironically suffer under the very burden of deeply rooted structural stigmas against fatness and fat bodies that such efforts seek to counter. However, drawing on research around policy change in response to other social movements, we conclude that we may be at a time where broad-ranging policy change could become a reality

Looks-Based Hiring and Wrongful Discrimination

Popular clothing retailer Abercrombie and Fitch (A&F) is well‐known for hiring attractive store sales clerks. While the economic benefits of this hiring practice for the company are undeniable, many commentators contend that it constitutes wrongful discrimination against unattractive job seekers. In this article, I explore the ethics of A&F‐style lookism and challenge two common perspectives on this issue. I argue that on one hand, looks‐based hiring cannot be defended based on its economic benefits alone, as race‐based hiring also can be profitable in some circumstances. At the same time, I reject arguments that looks‐based hiring is not “job relevant” given its economic impact in many contexts. Through a comparison between race‐ and looks‐based hiring, I conclude that at least for businesses that are relevantly similar to A&F—firms for which lookism produces clear economic benefits—looks‐based hiring is permissible