By Nickky de Guzman
WE REGRET to inform you that you have not been selected for the position you are applying for, because you are fat. Or that is what your prospective employer must be thinking, after noticing a bulge form on your stomach when you sat on the chair in front of his desk for your interview. Your wings fluttered while you were gesticulating. (You were saying something about growing figures…or was it breaking sales records?) As you were about to leave the room, there were folds of flesh that poured out from the garters of your bra, discernible through your tight-fitting dress.
The company has other candidates –who have impressive vital statistics and will look bangin’ in a bodycon –but fret not. Your resume remains on file in case the company expands much like your waistline, as the interviewer who already decided against you must be thinking.
An old-fashioned kind of discrimination persists in this day and age, when people are supposed to be receptive in every level of their perception of society and the world. Hiring based on weight might seem like a dated, even embarrassing standard, founded on superficial impressions on obesity, but modern companies are still guided by this paradigm, preferring applicants, say, who have a good figure, rather than applicants who are good at figures.
FULL BODY
According to a former recruiter of a telephone service provider interviewed for this story, a full body photo is a requirement for those applying to be frontline employees.
This is requested from applicants when they are called for an initial interview, and, perhaps, like merchandise in the “hospitality industry,” applicants go through the scrutiny of the human resources interviewer to the store managers — all potential supervisors who must examine how each applicant looks. “Bawal chubby,” the recruiter emphasized. (“Chubby discouraged.”) If there are chubby employees at the telecom stores, she pointed out, those are older employees, who are perhaps unaware that they are about to be transferred to another position or office where they will be less exposed to the public.
While the preferred body type is “slim,” there are other physical considerations that can affect the decision.
“Okay lang yung medyo may laman, basta maganda mukha,” she said. (“Being somewhat chubby is okay, as long as [the applicant] has an attractive face.”) There is also a height requirement of 5’4” for females and 5’5” or 5’6” for males. “Pero not necessarily super gwapo. Basta may appeal.” (“But not necessarily super handsome. As long as he has appeal.”)
Another recruiter, who screens potential bank tellers, said she does not require photos, but she also takes note of the face and body.
“Weight must be proportional to height,” she said, although she does not compute the body mass index or BMI, a known indicator of obesity which is computed by dividing body mass by the square of the body height. “Kung ano lang yung acceptable sa mata ng tao.” (“Whatever is acceptable in people’s eyes.”)
Of late, there has been a blog circulating online (theplumpladysings.blogspot.com) crying weight discrimination. It was a personal account by Camille Yabut, who narrated how her “dream company,” as identified in that blog, declared her “unfit to work for them because of obesity and impacted teeth.”
Ms. Yabut had applied for customer insights officer under the Marketing Department. She shared in our interview that she learned about the job opening through the UP Diliman Industrial Engineering Facebook group. Only three days after sending her application, she received a call for an interview.
It was otherwise an ordinary day — July 21, 2015, 3:30 p.m. Ms. Yabut was in a black and white dress, walking in black pointy shoes and clutching a small black bag. She was interviewed by a man and a woman, and the questions revolved around the work itself, her knowledge in quantitative analysis, past experience, and her hobbies and interests. “The interview went really well,” she recalled, “and I was confident that I had put my best foot forward during the conversation.” One week later, she received a call to undergo the next steps in her application process, and with that, a text message from her interviewer wishing her good luck, and please note the company’s “very strict medical criteria. Check on your ideal BMI.”
By August, Ms. Yabut was to undergo the pre-employment medical exam. It turned out like most medical exams until the last part.
Before Ms. Yabut stepped away from the desk, the nurse told her, “Start ka na rin mag-reduce.” Ms. Yabut responded with a smile.
A few days later, when she returned to have her teeth checked, the same nurse said she had yet to consult the company if Ms. Yabut could continue her application because “obesity is one of their disqualifications.”
Finally, on September 1, Ms. Yabut received an e-mail from the Human Capital Department regarding the status of her medical exam.
The e-mail said she was unfit to work, but may coordinate with the medical arm should she be interested to pursue her application. She then can “work on [her] weight to target the allowable percentage of overweight and work on [her] impacted teeth.” The e-mail ended with, “Please feel free to call us up should you have any concern.”
Ms. Yabut took to blog-publishing service Blogger to pour out her thoughts. In one day, her post entitled “My dream company says I’m too fat to work” reached 3,000 page views — quite a milestone considering it was her very first blog.
As of this writing, Ms. Yabut has not heard from this airline.
BusinessWorld also tried to reach this company for comment, to no avail.
UNFIT TO WORK
“I can only hope that the decision is backed up by empirical data, and that they can disclose their justification regarding their medical criteria,” Ms. Yabut said. “Other than that, I cannot think of other reasons to refuse the hiring of an overweight, or underweight person, besides their company culture.”
By Ms. Yabut’s count, her BMI is 35, making her Class II obese.
Going by the comments on the link from her Facebook profile, there was much empathy for her job-hunting experience. One shared that another airline had rejected her application because she was “overweight.” She did some research and found that her BMI was actually normal, going by World Health Organization standards, although she was near overweight.
Another comment cited a classified ad posted on Facebook by a popular international gym, looking for a graphic designer with “clear skin and ideal BMI.” The ad has been taken down.
While BMI is widely used to monitor obesity, it has also been much criticized as a standard for any procedure. This formula was developed in the 19th century by Belgian statistician Adolphe Quetelet.
An article in the Wall Street Journal pointed out, “There’s a reason the 180-year-old formula persists: It’s a pretty good tool. It just doesn’t do what most people believe it does — measure an individual’s fatness.”
Francisco Lopez-Jimenez, director of preventive cardiology at the Mayo Clinic, described BMI as “a measurement of mass.” But this doesn’t distinguish between fat and muscle. In any case, BMI needs to be backed by other complementary tests. Yet “despite its limitations, BMI became popular for several reasons: It is simple, cheap and accurate for assessing overall trends, reasons that led the WHO to adopt it as its standard obesity measurement in the 1980s,” said the article.
According to the BMI scale, less than 18.5 falls within the underweight range; 18.5 to 24.9 falls within the normal or healthy weight range; and 25.0 to 29.9 falls within the overweight range. BMI of 30.0 or higher is within the obese range.
Obesity is then further separated into three classes, based on the increased health risks associated with increasing BMI levels. Class I is for BMI between 30 to 34.9, Class II is for BMI of 35 to 39.9, and Class III is for BMI of more than 40.
According to a physician interviewed for this story, who has declared numerous outpatients “fit to work,” a person who is Class III obese might be considered as unfit. “For obesity, other tests should be requested that are not normally done in regular physical exams. It then entails added cost.”
This doctor admitted that she herself takes weight into consideration when she hires nurses. She remembers one particular applicant. “I naturally had to consider her weight because she’s supposed to promote health,” this doctor said. She also remembers her experience in med school, when studying nursing required a certain height, weight, and “general attractiveness.”
She said obesity shouldn’t be a problem when it comes to desk jobs.
“Naka-upo lang naman ‘yun e,” she said. (“They’re just seated.”) Yet she admitted that hiring varies among different doctors, and different companies. “Sa atin kasi, hindi talaga equal opportunity employers ang mga ‘yan.” (“In our society, they’re not really equal opportunity employers.”)
And this is not allowed by the Philippine Constitution itself.
DISCRIMINATION
“Without proper medical advise from a doctor, obesity should and must not be a basis to declare an applicant unfit to work,” said Mark Brian dela Cruz, a lawyer and himself an entrepreneur. He pointed out there is no law requiring submission of a photograph for employment purposes, adding that, in other countries, applicants are discouraged from sending their photos lest the hiring company might be accused of discrimination.
A company, Mr. dela Cruz said, must at all times look at a candidate beyond such considerations as weight, age, or sexual preference.
“The only reason to reject an applicant should be, ‘failure to meet the qualifications for employment.’” On the occasion that the minimum qualifications blatantly include anything that suggests weight, “then the hiring process is clearly discriminatory. Regardless of the industry, a company should not publish requirements which would be construed as discriminatory.”
He cited Article II, Section 18 of the Constitution: “The State affirms labor as a primary social economic force. It shall protect the rights of workers and promote their welfare.” Likewise, Article XIII, Section 3 of the Constitution provides: “The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all.” Also, Article III of the Labor Code of the Philippines states, “The State shall afford protection to labor, promote full employment, ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex, race or creed and regulate the relations between workers and employers. The State shall assure the rights of workers to self-organization, collective bargaining, security of tenure, and just and humane conditions of work.”
Under the Civil Code of the Philippines, an aggrieved party may file damages on the basis of Article 19, which declares, “Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith”; Article 20, which states, “Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same”; and Article 21: “Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.”
Mr. dela Cruz also noted that the Philippines is a member of the International Labour Organization and, as such, should follow international laws regarding labor, which includes encouraging decent employment opportunities. By its membership, the Philippines must promote and realize the right of workers to be free from discriminatory employment practices.
Despite this, weight discrimination seems to be prevalent in the country. The Department of Labor and Employment was called more than 10 times for this story but was unavailable by press time to comment on practices of recruiters who ask for photos or include “must have a pleasing personality” in the minimum job requirements.
As for people like Ms. Yabut, they would rather work in a place that does not discriminate. “After reading the feedback of other people on social media, my understanding [was affirmed], that this type of practice is indeed discriminatory,” she said.
“It is discriminatory because it is apparent that there is unfair treatment [of] people because of their weight. I am qualified for the job, and my weight has nothing to do with the work that I applied for.
Why should weight, or any other physical characteristic, be the basis in determining my acceptance to a job, rather than my ability to actually perform the required work?”
It is indeed worth noting how people spend four years in college, two years in graduate school, and two more years in post-graduate studies, only to be evaluated, in the end, by the ratio of their weight to height.
