The Law of Work
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
  • Home
  • About
  • Professor David Doorey
  • Osgoode Hall LLM
  • Books
  • Guest Contributors
  • Useful Links
    • Archive
The Law of Work
Law of Work Archive

Skinny Women Earn More, Skinny Men Earn Less. Should the Law Care?

by David Doorey January 26, 2011
written by David Doorey January 26, 2011

There was story in the National Post last weekend reporting on a study by some American scholars on the relationship between body shape and earnings. The study found that

Thin women earned about US$16,000 more a year on average. In contrast, thin men earned about $8,000 less than their more muscular male co-workers….   [R]esearch has shown that if you have two resumes, if all other qualifications make the candidates equal, the more physically attractive one — whether it’s a skinny woman or a muscle-y man — will have the leg up.”

In other words, physical appearance influences success at work.  What do you think explains this result?   Do you think this is wrong?  If so, do you think it is something that the law can fix?   How would it do that?
I’ve asked before whether our human rights legislation should prohibit discrimination on the basis of “physical appearance”.   Right now, Canadian human rights statutes do not.  That means that employer can discriminate against applicants and employees on the basis that they are not “pretty enough” or “thin enough” or “muscular enough”, unless those criteria indirectly discriminate on the basis of another prohibited ground.  For example, if by “not pretty enough”, the employer means “not white enough”, then that would be discrimination on the basis of skin colour.  But if the employer just thinks that one woman is “prettier” than another, or has a “nicer body” than another, and race, ethnicity, or disability are not issues, then distinguishing on the basis of physical appearance is perfectly legal in Canada.
See my earlier discussion about the Hooters’ restaurant in Michigan that placed two women servers on “weight probation” and told to go to the gym.  I noted that the human rights complaint filed by those servers might be successful in Michigan, where “weight” is included as a prohibited ground in the human rights legislation.  Since “weight” is not a prohibited ground in Ontario, is there anything in the human rights code to stop an employer from telling an employee to lose weight or be fired?  Look at the list of prohibited grounds in Section 5 of the Code. Would any apply to discrimination on the basis of “weight” or “body shape”?
Other related posts on this topic:
Can an Employer discriminate against me because I am too ugly? [And a Globe and Mail piece that reported on this post]
Can an Employer fire me for being too sexy?

1 comment
0
FacebookTwitterLinkedinEmail
David Doorey

Professor Doorey is an Associate Professor of Work Law and Industrial Relations at York University. He is Academic Director of Osgoode Hall Law School’s executive LLM Program in Labour and Employment Law and a Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School’s Labor and Worklife Program. Professor Doorey is a graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School (LL.B., Ph.D), London School of Economics (LLM Labour Law), and the University of Toronto (B.A., M.I.R.).

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

previous post
The Ongoing TTC "Essential Services" Debate
next post
Can your Employer Fire You For Shaving Your Hair Off?

You may also like

This Blog Entry is About the Lunacy of...

July 21, 2019

A Cross Country Update on the Card-Check versus...

October 3, 2018

The Folly of Not Voting to Strike in...

September 16, 2018

Unifor Posts Photos of Replacement Workers as Gander...

September 10, 2018

A Wrongful Dismissal Case and the Absence of...

August 29, 2018

China Said to Quickly Withdraw Approval for New...

August 27, 2018

The Latest Hot E-Commerce Idea in China: The...

August 27, 2018

The Trump Administration Just Did Something Unambiguously Good...

August 27, 2018

Unstable Situations Require Police In Riot Gear Face...

August 27, 2018

Trump’s War on the Justice System Threatens to...

August 27, 2018

Follow Us On Social Media

Twitter

Latest Tweets

TheLawofWork Follow

@ ·
now

Reply on Twitter Retweet on Twitter Like on Twitter Twitter
Load More

Categories

  • Alberta
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Australia
  • British Columbia
  • Charter of Rights and Freedoms
  • Childcare
  • Class Action
  • Climate and Just Transition
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Common Law of Employment
  • Comparative Work Law
  • competition law
  • construction
  • Constructive Dismissal
  • COVID-19
  • Diversity
  • Employee Classification
  • Employment Insurance
  • Employment Regulation
  • Europe
  • Financial Industry
  • Fissured Work
  • Freedom of Association
  • frustration of contract
  • Gender
  • Gig Work
  • Health and Safety
  • Health Care
  • Human Rights
  • Immigration
  • Interest Arbitration
  • International Law
  • Labour Arbitration
  • Labour Economics
  • Law of Work Archive
  • Legal Profession
  • Manitoba
  • Migrant Workers
  • Minimum Wage
  • New Zealand
  • Newfoundland
  • Nova Scotia
  • OLRB
  • Ontario
  • Pension Bankruptcy
  • Privacy
  • Public Sector
  • Quebec
  • Real Life Pleadings
  • Saskatchewan
  • Scholarship
  • Sports Labour
  • Strikes and Lockouts
  • Student Post
  • Supreme Court of Canada
  • technology
  • Transnational Law
  • Uncategorized
  • Unions and Collective Bargaining
  • United States
  • Videos
  • Women and Work
  • Wrongful Dismissal
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Guest Contributors
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive
Menu
  • Legal Scholarship
  • Useful Links
  • Archive

2020. Canadian Law of Work Forum. All Rights Reserved.