Daily News
View All NewsEurope – Obesity can constitute a disability, says European Court of Justice
The European Court of justice has ruled that obesity can constitute a disability within the meaning of the Employment Equality Directive. The case stems from Denmark where an obese worker, claims he was dismissed after 15 years due to his weight.
Karsten Kaltoft worked for the Municipality of Billund in Denmark as a child-minder and was responsible for taking care of children in his home. In November 2010, his employment contract was terminated.
The municipality states that the termination was as a result of low demand, with fewer parents needing child-minding services. However, the municipality failed to explain why it was Mr Kaltoft who had been dismissed, and not another employee.
During his 15 years’ of employment Mr Kaltoft was classified as obese, according to the definition from the World Health Organisation (WHO).
Mr Kaltoft’s weight was mentioned during a meeting to discuss the termination of his contract. However, both parties disagreed on the manner in which the issue was discussed and the municipality denied that his obesity was the reason behind Mr Kaltoft’s dismissal.
Danish workers’ union FOA, acting on behalf of Mr Kaltoft, brought proceedings before the Danish court, seeking compensation and a declaration that the actions of the municipality were discriminatory.
In the context of assessing that request, the District Court of Kolding, Denmark asked the European Court of Justice to specify whether EU law itself prohibits discrimination on the grounds of obesity. It also asked whether obesity can constitute a disability and therefore falls within the scope of the Employment Equality Directive.
In its judgment yesterday, the Court stated, first of all, that the general principle of non-discrimination is a fundamental right, which forms an integral part of the general principles of EU law. This principle is therefore binding on Member States where a national situation falls within the scope of EU law.
In that regard, the Court recalls that no provision of the Treaties or of secondary EU legislation prohibits discrimination on grounds of obesity, as such. In particular, the Employment Equality Directive does not cite obesity as a ground for discrimination and the scope of that directive should not be extended by analogy beyond the discrimination based on the grounds listed exhaustively. Moreover, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is likewise inapplicable in such a situation.
In this case, the Court considered that the case file contained nothing to suggest that a dismissal purportedly based on obesity as such would fall within the scope of EU law. Consequently, the Court holds that, in the area of employment and occupation, EU law does not lay down a general principle of non-discrimination on grounds of obesity as such.
As for whether obesity can constitute a ‘disability’ within the meaning of the directive, the Court observes that the purpose of the directive is to lay down a general framework for combating discrimination, in the area of employment and occupation, on any of the grounds referred to in the directive, which include disability.
The concept of ‘disability’ within the meaning of the directive must be understood as referring to a limitation; which results in particular from long-term physical, mental, or psychological impairments; which in interaction with various barriers may hinder the full and effective participation of the person concerned in professional life on an equal basis with other workers.
The Court emphasised that this concept must be understood as referring not only to the impossibility of exercising a professional activity, but also to a hindrance to the exercise of such an activity. The directive has the object of implementing equal treatment and aims in particular to enable a person with a disability to have access to, or participate in employment. In addition, it would run counter to the aim of the directive if its application was dependent on the origin of the disability.
Furthermore, the Court observed that the definition of the concept of ‘disability’ comes before the determination and assessment of the appropriate accommodation measures that, pursuant to the directive, employers must take in each particular case so as to enable a person with a disability to have access to, participate in, or advance in employment (unless such measures result in a disproportionate burden being imposed on the employer). Therefore, the mere fact that such accommodation measures may not have been taken in respect of Mr Kaltoft does not mean that he could not be considered a disabled person within the meaning of the directive.
On those grounds, the Court found that if, under given circumstances, the obesity of the worker entails a limitation; which results in particular from physical, mental, or psychological impairments; which in interaction with various barriers may hinder the full and effective participation of that person in professional life on an equal basis with other workers; and the limitation is a long-term one; such obesity can fall within the concept of ‘disability’ within the meaning of the directive.
Such would be the case, in particular, if the obesity of the worker hindered that participation on account of reduced mobility or the onset of medical conditions preventing that person from carrying out work or causing discomfort when exercising professional activity.
The court ruled, however, that it is for the national court to determine whether Mr Kaltoft’s obesity falls within the definition of ‘disability’.