Overweight MA instructor sues, loses, for being fired

[Bill Mattocks]

http://hr.blr.com/newsAlternate.aspx?category=3&topic=40&id=82519

June 21, 2010 Fired for Being Overweight?
A karate instructor was fired twice by the studios where he worked, one in Brooklyn, New York, and the other in Stamford, Connecticut. The studios’ owner, he alleged, told him he was terminated because of his weight. So he sued under New York civil rights laws.
For a Limited Time receive a FREE HR Report on the "Top 10 Best Practices in HR Management, 2010”. This comprehensive 50 page report covers Healthcare, Recordkeeping, Hiring, Retention, and other compliance issues. Download Now
What happened. “Suggs” was hired in June 2000 at a karate studio that is part of a 40-center chain called Tiger Schulmann’s Karate Schools in the Northeast and Florida. In August 2001, he was fired. Then he was hired at another center in Stamford, part of the same chain. In June 2002, he was fired again—he stated one reason, and the defendants gave another.
Suggs later testified that both the chain’s owner, Tiger Schulmann, and a part-owner told him he was being terminated because he was overweight. Schulmann testified instead that Suggs was fired because his co-workers didn’t like him and he’d been overheard disparaging Schulmann. Siegel sued for disabilities discrimination, claiming that a hormonal imbalance prevented him from losing weight. He also said that Schulmann fired another instructor, a friend of his, which Suggs believed was retaliation. He filed his suit under the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL).
A federal district court judge dismissed all of Suggs’ charges.

 

[Empty Hands]

If he was fired for being overweight, then why was he hired (twice) in the first place?

Of course, even if it was the case, it seems like weight and martial arts seniority and "mastery" go hand in hand.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Maybe he put on the weight after he was hired? And maybe the overweight interfered with his ability to perform his job to the levels of expectation? In that case, his overweight would be a legitimate reason for dismissal.

I'm not saying this is what happened, but without more facts it could go either way.

 

[geezer]

What? People actually earn enough money as employees teaching MA at somebody else's school for this to even be an issue? Wow.

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I find it humorous that he's suing under the disabilities act.

The man is a karate instructor and apparently has no difficulty in locomotion. I would hardly call him disabled, at least not in the sense that I understand the meaning of the word. Sounds like he's plenty 'able' but overweight. I know many who fit that description, several of whom are excellent MA instructors.

Of course, the owner states that the reason for dismissal was personality conflicts. Suggs or Seigle, or whatever the guys name is, claims that it is weight. Unless he has it documented that the chain released him for obesity, he may have a hard time winning his case, though not being a lawyer, I may be wrong.

I won't speculate as to which party is in the right. Not nearly enough facts to do so. It would have been nice if they had had a picture of the guy.

Daniel

 

[Flea]

Of course, the owner states that the reason for dismissal was personality conflicts. Suggs or Seigle, or whatever the guys name is, claims that it is weight. Unless he has it documented that the chain released him for obesity, he may have a hard time winning his case, though not being a lawyer, I may be wrong.

I'll say from personal experience that it's virtually impossible to prove discrimination. The defendant can fabricate all the anecdotal "evidence" they wish at their leisure, and it's the plaintiff's job to refute it piece by piece.

Obesity can certainly be a disability in extreme cases. The problem is that the ADA sets up a Catch-22 for the disabled person - if you can prove you're disabled, an employer can seize on that to argue that you can't perform the job. If you can prove that you can do the job, they'll argue that you aren't disabled and therefore don't qualify for discrimination protection. Add to that the fact that civil rights suits seldom generate enough money to interest attorneys, and the financial gutting of the EEOC, and a plaintiff is pretty much on his own.

 

[KenpoVzla]

Sue?

That's your queue to get out of there, lose some weight and start your own dojo.

 

[Senjojutsu]

I'll say from personal experience that it's virtually impossible to prove discrimination. The defendant can fabricate all the anecdotal "evidence" they wish at their leisure, and it's the plaintiff's job to refute it piece by piece.

Obesity can certainly be a disability in extreme cases. The problem is that the ADA sets up a Catch-22 for the disabled person - if you can prove you're disabled, an employer can seize on that to argue that you can't perform the job. If you can prove that you can do the job, they'll argue that you aren't disabled and therefore don't qualify for discrimination protection. Add to that the fact that civil rights suits seldom generate enough money to interest attorneys, and the financial gutting of the EEOC, and a plaintiff is pretty much on his own.

But what if the aforementioned plantiff can produce secret videotaped evidence of the workplace discrimination actually in process??

*** Profanity warning - a couple of "F" Bombs - NSFW ***

Full Metal Jacket Scene - Jelly Doughnut

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

I'll say from personal experience that it's virtually impossible to prove discrimination. The defendant can fabricate all the anecdotal "evidence" they wish at their leisure, and it's the plaintiff's job to refute it piece by piece.

Absolutely.

A plaintiff needs to have as much documentation as possible. Plaintiffs also can fabricate claims at their leisure as well. If one is going to take another to court, particularly if the case has a subjective nature to it (discrimination probably does), they need to be armed and ready.

Obesity can certainly be a disability in extreme cases.

Agreed, though this case does not sound like an extreme obesity case. Though without a picture or mention of the man's weight, it's hard to say.

The problem is that the ADA sets up a Catch-22 for the disabled person - if you can prove you're disabled, an employer can seize on that to argue that you can't perform the job. If you can prove that you can do the job, they'll argue that you aren't disabled and therefore don't qualify for discrimination protection.

Indeed. The big question on this case is whether or not his dismissal was due to him being fat or being unable to play nice with others, and if it was for him being fat, then was he unable to do the job?

Realistically, if he physically was unable to do the job, the school could not logically keep him on staff.

In the setting of an MA school however, the instructor does not need to be able to perform fantastic flash & trash techniques to be a capable instructor. An instructor that I had previously was absolutely one of the best instructors that I ever had, hands down, and she struggled with her weight. Overweight or no, she delivered the goods.

However, if the school is promoting fitness and weight loss as a primary benefit to what they teach, then it is not unreasonable to require that the instructors maintain a managable weight. Yet another reason that I am not in favor of grafting 'health and fitness' onto the martial arts.

The article is very short on detail (to the point that I had to stop for a moment to figure out who 'Siegle' was, as he was referred to 'Suggs' several times prior with no mention of his real name). Was Suggs so obese that he couldn't do the job or just portly (like Sammo Hung)? Did he come on board at a reasonable weight and then pack it on or did they hire him overweight and then suffer buyers remorse?

I think that the fact that he was hired and released twice by two schools in the same chain but in different states indicates that weight loss is probably not the issue. Though that certainly does not put the school in the right by default; it just means that there is likely more going on than what is indicated in this article.

Add to that the fact that civil rights suits seldom generate enough money to interest attorneys, and the financial gutting of the EEOC, and a plaintiff is pretty much on his own.

And suing an MA school, even a chain, is unlikely to yield a large sum (from a lawyer's standpoint at least) anyway.

Daniel

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

But what if the aforementioned plantiff can produce secret videotaped evidence of the workplace discrimination actually in process??

*** Profanity warning - a couple of "F" Bombs - NSFW ***

Full Metal Jacket Scene - Jelly Doughnut

I'd call that an ace in the hole, unless it violated some law about videotaping others without their being informed.

I had jury duty in a landlord tenant case several years ago and the plaintiff seemed to have a solid case until the defense (the tenant) played a tape where the defendant was telling the plaintiff that he was being recorded and the plaintiff said he didn't care because he had an axe and was going to chop the defendent up.

In that case, the plaintiff was informed and chose to continue hostile behavior anyway. I would gather that to do as you suggest would require the plaintiff to be either unaware that he was being filmed or to be such an idiot that he would incriminate himself anyway.

I have no idea what the laws are regarding videotaping others in NY.

Daniel

 

[Phoenix44]

Fired TWICE from two different centers for being fat? I'm guessing that's baloney.

 

[d1jinx]

while being overweight would not be the "IDEAL" or "preferred" appearance for a martial arts instructor... The ONLY thing that should matter is the quality of instructor. He obviously was of poor quality.

 

[Grenadier]

I've known many overweight instructors who are excellent teachers. Weight isn't really an issue when it comes to quality of instruction, unless it gets to a point where the instructor cannot demonstrate a fundamental technique anymore.

This former instructor was simply grasping at straws, since he really didn't have an argument in the first place. The fact that he was re-hired at one time, shows that the owner didn't place a premium demand on being fit and trim.

Besides, it's a private dojo, and the owner can hire or fire whomever he pleases.

 

[Carol]

Suggs later testified that both the chain’s owner, Tiger Schulmann, and a part-owner told him he was being terminated because he was overweight. Schulmann testified instead that Suggs was fired because his co-workers didn’t like him and he’d been overheard disparaging Schulmann.

Personally, I find "co-workers didn't like him" and "talking trash about the boss" as being far more believable reasons for the termination than "fat".

 

[Yondanchris]

Thank goodness cause I am getting to be in the "seniority" as far as weight goes, although I have seen a lot of "large" masters move so fast they make your head spin....

If he was fired for being overweight, then why was he hired (twice) in the first place?

Of course, even if it was the case, it seems like weight and martial arts seniority and "mastery" go hand in hand.