User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 6:00:54 AM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
Quoted:
They fucked up with 16yrs of good performance reports. They should have been documenting every time his weight hindered his ability to perform the job. In situations like this, you are only hearing the plaintiff's side of the story. The company will present their case in court. My guess is that they have plenty of documentation. Companies that deal with the federal government are required to jump through extraordinary hoops with employee relations. The HR manager that made the final decision on this termination would have made sure it would hold up in court. I would think that if the unemployment office (Texas Workforce Connection??) thought it was BS enough to grant him his unemployment insurance check, then that HR Manager didn't have quite the airtight case he/she thought he/she did. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 6:03:20 AM EDT
[#2]
680lb is a bit out of the usual
Just a little |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 6:04:35 AM EDT
[#3]
Quoted:
So he is "entitled" to his job? Company should be able to fire you for any reason at any time. Their company, their rules. Couple of things...Texas IS a Right to work state and what you say is basically correct. However..if the company wants to be able to defend themselves against unemployment claims ( and the resulting rise in their payroll tax %), and lawsuits...then issues MUST be documented. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 6:05:21 AM EDT
[#4]
God hates fat people
 There's no excuse for weighing close to 700 pounds. I'm sure the guy was slow as hell at his job!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 6:18:06 AM EDT
[#5]
$21/hr as a parts sorter? Da fuck?
If I had been fired for being fat I would have spent the last 2 years losing weight not trying to sue. It is your responsibility to make yourself employable. It is not your employers responsibility to give you a job. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 6:20:30 AM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
"I wanted to cry," Kratz, who was earning $21 an hour to support his wife and three teenagers, told the Chronicle. i bet he cry's bacon grease... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 6:51:49 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
Who cares if he's fat. He's obviously working to take care of his family . what's the problem? He likes to eat, so what? I hope he sues and wins. Watch a bunch of assholes. his former employer did. 680 lbs is about 450 lbs past healthy. with health car costs going up they probably don't want to insure mr. coronary. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 6:52:58 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
human resources to be told he was being terminated because company officials thought that he weighed too much, the Houston Chronicle reports. That is where the BAE screwed up. Call me skeptical, but I have a hard time believing a company as large as BAE would make such a rookie move. In my experience the larger the company the dumber the HR department. I suppose there could be some truth to that- as it's natural that large companies rely more on proceedures and less on people knowing what the fuck they're doing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 6:53:50 AM EDT
[#9]
BAE better get their check book out and make sure they have plenty of ink in their pen as they will be paying out BIG TIME..............
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 6:53:52 AM EDT
[#10]
I can only imagine the toilet seat deformation that poor company had to be experiencing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 7:00:00 AM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
All of the "news" in this article - including how and why he was fired comes only from Kratz himself. So no-one can reach an informed decision on what did or didn't occur.... including his "claimed" job performance. fatties always say they can work just as hard, and just as fast as everyone else. A lot of them will say 'I may be big, but I'm still healthy'...at 600+ pounds... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 7:02:40 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Who cares if he's fat. He's obviously working to take care of his family . what's the problem? He likes to eat, so what? I hope he sues and wins. Watch a bunch of assholes. You really don't think being 680lbs would affect his work? Kratz, who had gotten two promotions and high performance ratings over his 16-year-career maybe those happen in his firs t90 days- back when he was only 250ish. We need picture of this dainty ballerina to adequately judge. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 7:07:24 AM EDT
[#13]
I'm a big dude, and that guy has 300lbs on me. I can't imagine being 680. Hell I'm fucking pissed at myself for being 380.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 7:14:30 AM EDT
[#14]
This whole situation is about 680 kinds of fucked up....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 7:21:17 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
If they told him they were firing him due to his weight, not performance, and no where in his job description or Company policies had a "weight clause", then they (the Company) are screwed. Any HR person that would actually tell someone they are fired for being fat is to stupid for words in this day & age. Not defendinig this fat fuck but if he was doing his job then it's his business to be a human hippo, not the Company's. Welcome to Texas where you can be fired for -wait for it- ANYTHING that isnt in a protected class. Thus far, fatties arent a protected class- and neither are smokers from what we've found out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 7:24:13 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
Employment. At. Will. I hate to say it, but this. Absolutely this. And to the people that are crowing about race and gender...THAT is covered under EEO. Weight is not. And as far as vehicle? My brother in law worked at a Chevy dealer and drove a Mitsubishi Galant(bought before he worked at said dealer) and he parked in the back lot. He worked at a Land Rover store and drove a Jeep. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 7:30:14 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: Quoted: Who cares if he's fat. He's obviously working to take care of his family . what's the problem? He likes to eat, so what? I hope he sues and wins. Watch a bunch of assholes. Company cared that he was fat. Why should company not be allowed to fire someone because they are fat? Wonder how much money he could have saved his family instead of eating so much? I hope he dies of fatness. I hope peeps cause cancer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 7:33:18 AM EDT
[#18]
2 promotions in 16 years is not exactly what I call stunning performance. What the hell was he before that parts sorter was considered a promotion?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 7:36:41 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Company should be able to fire you for any reason at any time. Their company, their rules. So a company should be able to fire you if your white or black, male or female? If they fire some other than your color/gender and they fire you also to keep the ratio the same? If you buy a GM and the owner of the company is a Ford man? If you buy a mobile home and the owner of the company only likes brick homes? These examples fall under your idea. Yes. A company should be able to fire you anytime, for any reason they feel like. My company fired everyone who didnt eat at least one peep when we put them in the company break room. Exactly! Just like a company should be able to fire someone for say, having tattoos. Thats different, the desire to get tattood is genetic and has a history of being discriminated against. Reparations are required for previous mistreatment. Fatness is not genetic. Hate of peeps is not genetic. You should know this. Hating peeps is a choice, just like getting tattooed or letting yourself get to weigh 700 pounds. Please show me where scientists have discovered a tattoo gene or a peeps gene. I'm glad that you're happy with your "lifestyle choice", but I shouldn't be forced to work with you people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 7:38:00 AM EDT
[#20]
I didn't realize that being obese was a disability.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 7:41:28 AM EDT
[#21]
While I think it was stupid of them to get rid of him if he was a hard worker, companies should be able to hire and fire anyone they want. YMMV.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 7:42:17 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
Quoted:
If they told him they were firing him due to his weight, not performance, and no where in his job description or Company policies had a "weight clause", then they (the Company) are screwed. Any HR person that would actually tell someone they are fired for being fat is to stupid for words in this day & age. Not defendinig this fat fuck but if he was doing his job then it's his business to be a human hippo, not the Company's. Most likely the company will come up with a better reason, the HR drone just didn't know what to say so told the truth. I have never *once* heard of that problem. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 7:51:47 AM EDT
[#23]
Guys - even in right to work states there is "wrongful termination" issues.
Business owners get this. People in supervisory positions get this. Of the many problems in this situation (by both parties) - the reason for termination is the core issue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 7:53:30 AM EDT
[#24]
Fuck them for saying being fat is a disability.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 7:57:03 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
Employment. At. Will. "At will" employment is something of a misnomer. EEOC rules still apply. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 8:00:55 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Employment. At. Will. "At will" employment is something of a misnomer. EEOC rules still apply. Show me where in EEOC it discusses obesity. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 8:03:01 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: So he is "entitled" to his job? Company should be able to fire you for any reason at any time. Their company, their rules. So if you get hurt on the job and need to take a few days off to recover they should be able to shit can you? What if your NG unit gets deployed for a few months. Should they be able to fire you? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 8:04:54 AM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: Quoted: So he is "entitled" to his job? Company should be able to fire you for any reason at any time. Their company, their rules. Couple of things...Texas IS a Right to work state and what you say is basically correct. However..if the company wants to be able to defend themselves against unemployment claims ( and the resulting rise in their payroll tax %), and lawsuits...then issues MUST be documented. "Right to work" has NOTHING to do with "Employment at will". |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 8:05:07 AM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Employment. At. Will. "At will" employment is something of a misnomer. EEOC rules still apply. Show me where in EEOC it discusses obesity. This. Or, they should have fired him "just because." |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 8:06:34 AM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Who cares if he's fat. He's obviously working to take care of his family . what's the problem? He likes to eat, so what? I hope he sues and wins. Watch a bunch of assholes. Company cared that he was fat. Why should company not be allowed to fire someone because they are fat? Wonder how much money he could have saved his family instead of eating so much? I hope he dies of fatness. This |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 8:08:54 AM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
Quoted:
They fucked up with 16yrs of good performance reports. They should have been documenting every time his weight hindered his ability to perform the job. In situations like this, you are only hearing the plaintiff's side of the story. The company will present their case in court. My guess is that they have plenty of documentation. Companies that deal with the federal government are required to jump through extraordinary hoops with employee relations. The HR manager that made the final decision on this termination would have made sure it would hold up in court. Exactly. The Plaintiff is going to paint himself as the hardest working 680 lbs man who ever lived. However, I think common sense would tell us that something that extremely heavy is not going to the fastest or hardest worker. Just him going on a coffee break and going back to his work station would take incredible effort and time I'm sure. Not to mention to maintain that weight he must have been eating literally 24/7 including during work. You can't stay that fat without consuming a massive amount of calories. The weight itself is difficult to move and burns calories when just walking around so maintain weight he would need to eat like a couple of horses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 8:09:50 AM EDT
[#32]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Company should be able to fire you for any reason at any time. Their company, their rules. So a company should be able to fire you if your white or black, male or female? If they fire some other than your color/gender and they fire you also to keep the ratio the same? If you buy a GM and the owner of the company is a Ford man? If you buy a mobile home and the owner of the company only likes brick homes? These examples fall under your idea. Good lord when did people become such crybabies about this sort of thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 8:11:33 AM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
Is obesity considered a disability under "federal disability laws"? How can a self-inflicted condition be a legitimate disability? Umm, smokers anyone? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 8:14:27 AM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Who cares if he's fat. He's obviously working to take care of his family . what's the problem? He likes to eat, so what? I hope he sues and wins. Watch a bunch of assholes. Company cared that he was fat. Why should company not be allowed to fire someone because they are fat? Wonder how much money he could have saved his family instead of eating so much? I hope he dies of fatness. The company was probably mad because he ate all the peeps. They should be allowed to fire a gut-stuffing hog who eats all the peeps. He probably ate his family when they got too close to the peeps. The peep gods will watch over this one, most likely, and he will live a long and happy, peep-filled life. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 8:19:31 AM EDT
[#35]
Quoted: Quoted: Is obesity considered a disability under "federal disability laws"? How can a self-inflicted condition be a legitimate disability? Umm, smokers anyone? When have they been able to get SS benefits for being "disabled." I know a few folks that have been able to get SS benefits for being obese and this was back in the late 1980s/1990s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 8:20:42 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is obesity considered a disability under "federal disability laws"? How can a self-inflicted condition be a legitimate disability? Umm, smokers anyone? When have they been able to get SS benefits for being "disabled." I know a few folks that have been able to get SS benefits for being obese and this was back in the late 1980s/1990s. I've seen people with SS benefits for 'anxiety.'
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 8:23:45 AM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is obesity considered a disability under "federal disability laws"? How can a self-inflicted condition be a legitimate disability? Umm, smokers anyone? God Good point. Didn't think about smokers. You smoke your fired. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 8:23:56 AM EDT
[#38]
iirc, he does not weight 680 any more but was when he was fired. i think i saw on the news that he has lost 250-300 pounds since then...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 8:34:23 AM EDT
[#39]
I bet he smelled. Other workers couldn't concentrate.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 10:52:49 AM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
While I think it was stupid of them to get rid of him if he was a hard worker, companies should be able to hire and fire anyone they want. YMMV. People who weigh 700 lbs are not hard workers, they are hard eaters. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 10:53:17 AM EDT
[#41]
A lot of people in this thread seem to think that "fat" is a protected class under ADA or Civil Rights law.
It's certainly not protected under Civil Rights law, and there are multiple legal cases still in the system trying to determine IF, or how much, of being grossly overweight might be covered by ADA. If covered by ADA, someone can still be fired if they are unable to do their job even with reasonable accommodation. If his job required lots of walking, bending, picking things up, etc - and he is unable to do those things, then he could probably be fired even IF gross obesity is covered by ADA. So all of those people saying that the company is completely screwed, and will have to pay a big settlement, etc - are not necessarily correct at all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 10:54:57 AM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
Quoted:
While I think it was stupid of them to get rid of him if he was a hard worker, companies should be able to hire and fire anyone they want. YMMV. People who weigh 700 lbs are not hard workers, they are hard eaters.
they are hard on the fatigue mats. that weight is pretty concentrated. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 10:56:13 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Employment. At. Will. "At will" employment is something of a misnomer. EEOC rules still apply. Show me where in EEOC it discusses obesity. I didn't say it did. But blanket statements like "at will employment" aren't black and white. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 11:33:59 AM EDT
[#44]
You know, fatties all over are probably eating Supreme pizzas in celebration of this. Truth be told - this is a major setback for fatty employment.
Think about it - you think companies are going to hire fatties now? I won't. They just ensured that fatties will get the cold shoulder when they apply for a job. CMOS |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 11:39:45 AM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
Quoted:
So he is "entitled" to his job? Company should be able to fire you for any reason at any time. Their company, their rules. So if you get hurt on the job and need to take a few days off to recover they should be able to shit can you? What if your NG unit gets deployed for a few months. Should they be able to fire you? Look up the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, protected class. http://www.aflcio.org/issues/jobseconomy/workersrights/rightsatwork_e/reservists.cfm Basicaly you can get called up do your tour, get job back with no negative stuff happening. loss of pay is NOT the employer's problem however. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 11:39:45 AM EDT
[#46]
Quoted: You know, fatties all over are probably eating Supreme pizzas in celebration of this. Truth be told - this is a major setback for fatty employment. Think about it - you think companies are going to hire fatties now? I won't. They just ensured that fatties will get the cold shoulder when they apply for a job. CMOS Then maybe they'll take measures to not be fat anymore. IMO it's the acceptance of fat people that has led to the obesity problem we have. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 11:44:37 AM EDT
[#47]
At 680 lbs about all anyone would be good for is taking up space and destroying the company chairs.
Fat Bastard needs to get on a fucking treadmill. If he doesn't he didn't figure to be around to support his family much longer anyway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 11:47:05 AM EDT
[#48]
Quoted:
I know plenty of useless contractors and government employees who aren't grossly overweight. We could fire half of all of them, and so long as it was the right half, it would be nothing but a benefit... we could still do everything we're doing today, but at half the cost. If this dude's weight was affecting his work, he should have been counseled on that, and BAE should have a paper trail leading up to a termination with cause. Not, "You're too fat to work here any more" I'm all for firing people who require "accommodation". Our gov't customer has at least one blind employee who requires hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of special software and hardware and hundreds or thousands of additional man-hours to support. And this individual is not some high-level exec. Why should the taxpayer be paying to keep this person employed? Hire someone who can do the job without all the extras. Are you going to bitch when someone with a disability is sucking off the government tit on SSDI? You can't have it both ways. If someone is disabled and wants to work I say let them. If you have to make accommodations then do it. Happens to be the Law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 12:24:14 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted: Who cares if he's fat. He's obviously working to take care of his family . what's the problem? He likes to eat, so what? I hope he sues and wins. Watch a bunch of assholes. The problem is they determined he was not able to perform at work. I don't care he has personal liability he has to uphold to. We all have personal problems, but it's not a work issue unless it interfering with them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/29/2011 12:28:56 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted: Quoted: Who cares if he's fat. He's obviously working to take care of his family . what's the problem? He likes to eat, so what? I hope he sues and wins. Watch a bunch of assholes. The problem is they determined he was not able to perform at work. I don't care he has personal liability he has to uphold to. We all have personal problems, but it's not a work issue unless it interfering with them. too bad that they gave him good performance reviews... |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
