its ok to be ugly
Paper instructions:
After reading the following articles, in the order they are listed respond to the questions below.

Respond to the following:

1. Do you think this is successful claimsmaking? Why or why not, be specific?

2. How is the claim “framed”? How would you improve Lynn Romer’s claim? Be specific.

3. How could “Lookism” be connected to other social problems.

4. What are the components of the claim?

5. For whom is it a problem?

6. In whose interest is it that the problem be solved?

7. In whose interest is it that the problem remains unsolved?

8. Would a reformulation of the problem make it easier to solve?

9. Why hasn’t it been solved until now?

10. What would the world look like if the problem were solved?

Vic?ms of ‘Lookism’ Face Uphill Ba?le
By Catherine Valen?
May 13 abcnews.go.com
Alleged Vic?ms of ‘Lookism’ in Workplace Face Uphill Ba?le
Joseph Connor’s job as a cook at a McDonald’s in Hamden, Conn., never materialized, and he thinks he
knows why — lookism.
Connor got the offer a”er a#ending a job fair in September of 2000. But when he and other newly hired
workers reported to the restaurant to prepare for work, they were asked their clothing sizes for uniforms.
The 37-year-old New Haven resident, who weighs around 420 pounds, provided his, including a size 54
waist, says his lawyer, Gary Phelan of Klebanoff & Phelan in West Har6ord, Conn.
A”er not hearing back, Connor called about the status of his job, only to be told his uniform pants weren’t
ready yet, recounts Phelan. For months, he got the same response. Finally, Connor went to the restaurant in
person to talk to the manager, but was told a new manager was in charge and wasn’t available to speak to
him.
But at the restaurant that day, Connor no9ced many of the other workers he had been hired with were
already working behind the counter. And, Phelan adds, none were wearing uniform pants provided by the
company.
Connor’s Not Alone in Suing Over Looks
It was not long a”er that Connor decided to sue McDonald’s for discrimina9on in viola9on of the Americans
with Disabili9es Act and the Connec9cut Fair Employment Prac9ces Act.
Last month, a federal judge refused to dismiss his almost two-year-old suit against the company.
McDonald’s did not return calls for comment.
But Connor’s suit is just one of a series of recentcases where workers took legal ac9on against their
employer or prospec9ve employer for allegedly discrimina9ng against them or others based on their
appearance.
While some of the cases seem like clear-cut discrimina9on, experts warn that in reality those who claimto
have suffered discrimina9on because of their appearance have very li#le protec9on under the law.
“Appearance discrimina9on, as such, is not something that the law generally protects against,” explains Sam
Marcosson, associate professor of law at the University of Louisville in Kentucky. “That’s where the problem
comes in for a lot of people.”
Few Laws Bar ‘Lookism’
Because no federal laws protect against discrimina9on based on appearance — and only a few U.S.
communi9es, like Santa Cruz, Calif., have such laws— plain9ffs o”en must prove the discrimina9on is based
on other factors.
The basis of the discrimina9on could be alleged, for instance, to be a disability or the percep9on of a
Vic9ms of ‘Lookism’ Face Uphill Ba#le – ABC News h#p://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=86602&page=1
1 of 3 5/27/2013 8:28 PM
disability. Or the basis could be that the person is being discriminated against by being held to an
appearance standard members of the opposite sex or another group aren’t expected to meet. Also illegalis
discrimina9on based on age.
“Even if an employer has a right to set certain appearance and grooming standards, it can only do so as long
as it does not discriminate against a par9cular sex, race or religion,” says Eric Matusewitch, deputy director
of the New York City Equal Employment Prac9ces Commission in Manha#an.
Connor’s suit against McDonald’s, for example, claims the company violated laws by regarding him as
morbidly obese and not hiring him because of that percep9on. He also claims his weight is a disabilityunder
Connec9cut state law and McDonald’s is viola9ng that by refusing to hire him.
McDonald’s in Another Appearance ‘Disability’ Case
Another recent case also involves McDonald’s. Samantha Robichaud, a former McDonald’s employee, filed
suit against the company, claiming it discriminatedagainst her when it denied her a management posi9on
because of a cosme9c disfigurement known as Sturge Weber Syndrome, a condi9on that has le” her with a
purple-colored “port-wine stain” on a significant por9on of her face.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently filed a federal lawsuit in Birmingham, Ala.,
accusing the McDonald’s franchisee in ques9on of viola9ng the Americans With Disabili9es Act, or ADA,
because the company’s percep9on of Robichaud havinga disability prevented her from geOng promoted.
Neither Robichaud nor her lawyer would comment for this ar9cle, but the EEOC said the case was the first
lawsuit filed in Alabama involving facial disfigurement.
“We believe it is important to educate employers that the ADA requires a focus on what people can do, not
how they are perceived,” said Cynthia G. Pierre, District Director of the EEOC’s Birmingham District Office in
a statement.
Standards of Beauty
Another case out of San Francisco involves a woman named Elysa Yanowitz, a former sales manager at
L’Oreal, who says a supervisor told her to fire one of her saleswomen for not being good looking enoughin
late 1997.
Yanowitz refused to fire the woman, and became a vic9m of what her husband and lawyer Herbert
Yanowitz says was a campaign to try to get her to leave the company that included solici9ng nega9ve
comments about her from her employees, denying her requests for addi9onal workers and giving her a
rigorous travel schedule.
“They were trying to undermine her authority and effec9veness with her staff,” he says.
In July of 1998, she went on disability leave, no longer able to handle the stress she was under at the job.
Yanowitz decided not to go back to L’Oreal and filedsuit against them in 1999 for under California’s Fair
Employment and Housing Act, seeking compensatory damages for emo9onal distress and loss of earnings,
as well as puni9ve damages.
While her suit was originally dismissed on a summary judgment, a California appeals court recently ruled
she can file a claim on the grounds of sexual discrimina9on for an order to fire a female employee on
standards of a#rac9veness male employees were not expected to meet.
Vic9ms of ‘Lookism’ Face Uphill Ba#le – ABC News h#p://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=86602&page=1
2 of 3 5/27/2013 8:28 PM
“My wife had hired a number of men over the years and she was never told that she had to consider
physical appearance for them,” says Herbert Yanowitz.
L’Oreal’s lawyers have asked the California SupremeCourt to review the case. In a statement, the company
says it does not tolerate any form of discrimina9onin the workplace and would not comment further on the
specific details of the case, but noted that many ofher claims to date have been dismissed by the court.
Good Looks, Be#er Pay?
While some legal advocates say more needs to be done to prevent discrimina9on based on appearance,
others say such a law would violate a company’s right to have appearance standards for its employees,
something that is legal as long as it’s applied evenly to workers.
Further, some jobs, such as modeling or ac9ng, may require a person to have a specific kind of appearance,
and these employers have the right to ask for a certain “type” for a par9cular assignment.
“They’re allowed to go and hire thin models if theywant to, and that’s not discrimina9on,” says David
Blanchflower, an economics professor at Dartmouth College. “It’s unclear that the government needs to get
into these kinds of things.”
Yet research shows a#rac9veness, or what society deems a#rac9ve, can affect what workers earn.
One long-term study co-authored by Blanchflower of more than 12,500 Bri9sh 16-year-olds found obese
girls and short boys earned less than their thinnerand taller counterparts by the 9me they reached the age
of 23.
Another study in 1994 found people with below-average looks got anywhere from one to 15 percent less
pay than their counterparts. People with above-average looks earned a pay premium of ranging from one
percent to 13 percent.
Daniel Hamermesh, professor of Economics at the University of Texas at Aus9n, who co-authored the la#er
study, predicts bias based on looks will only increase as the service sector con9nues its dominance ofthe
U.S. economy and face-to-face contact becomes more important.
“We insist on being treated by somebody that we enjoy looking at,” says Hamermesh. “The solu9on is
geOng us all to realize that this isn’t so important.”
Copyright © 2013 ABC News Internet Ventures
Vic9ms of ‘Lookism’ Face Uphill Ba#le – ABC News h#p://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=86602&page=1
3 of 3 5/27/2013 8:28 PM
ORDER THIS ESSAY HERE NOW AND GET A DISCOUNT !!!