Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Posted: 9/29/2011 3:12:41 AM EST
680 lbs.


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/28/worker-allegedly-fired-for-being-overweight/?test=latestnews


Ronald Kratz insists his weight did not interfere with his ability to perform his job duties as a parts sorter. His employer determined that it did.

A Texas worker is suing his employer for firing him because he weighed 680 pounds.

EEOC, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of the worker, Ronald Kratz II, alleges that BAE Systems, a company that manufactures military vehicles, violated federal disability laws by firing its morbidly obese employee.

Kratz insists his weight did not interfere with his ability to perform his job duties as a parts sorter. His employer determined that it did.

Kratz said he reported for an overtime shift two years ago only to be called into human resources to be told he was being terminated because company officials thought that he weighed too much, the Houston Chronicle reports.

Kratz, who had gotten two promotions and high performance ratings over his 16-year-career, was so shocked that he offered to take a demotion to keep his job. Company officials reportedly declined to take the offer.

"I wanted to cry," Kratz, who was earning $21 an hour to support his wife and three teenagers, told the Chronicle.

Link Posted: 9/29/2011 3:16:53 AM EST
He is a fat ass but at least he was a working fat ass.



I'm shure the company was told if they didn't get rid of him they would loose the health coverage that had.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 3:17:55 AM EST
I guess the contractor is downsizing.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 3:19:38 AM EST
At that weight, there's no way he could keep up with someone who weighed 1/3 of him. The amount of effort it would take to just turn around or stand up would be quite a bit slower than a normal person.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 3:21:36 AM EST
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.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 3:22:50 AM EST
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.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 3:24:08 AM EST

Originally Posted By Muerte:
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?
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 3:26:49 AM EST
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.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 3:29:16 AM EST
I just knew Arfcom would weigh in on the problem.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 3:30:36 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/29/2011 3:34:03 AM EST by Moose]
Originally Posted By stangboy555:


You really don't think being 680lbs would affect his work?


Not knowing exactly what he did, I'm not sure. But I would guess so.

But his performance ratings should reflect that. And then HR could use that as a basis against him. Not just that he's fat.

Eta: y'know, just like wookie1562 said.
(Damn slow ass "smart"phone)

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 3:33:08 AM EST

Originally Posted By 0ldGuy:
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.

Link Posted: 9/29/2011 3:33:56 AM EST
My buddy is in IT. They hired a 500+ pound woman to work in IT at his company. She can't even fit between the servers. She can't even fit under a desk to plug in a computer. So she creates more work for everyone else because someone else has to come and do the things she can't fit into.

Link Posted: 9/29/2011 3:34:18 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/29/2011 3:37:13 AM EST by vbfg135]
http://instantrimshot.com/
Originally Posted By TwoDogKnight:
I just knew Arfcom would weigh in on the problem.

Link Posted: 9/29/2011 3:34:37 AM EST

Originally Posted By Muerte:
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.

Theres being fat, and then theres having severely limited mobility.

The company also told investigators that Kratz had trouble bending, stooping and kneeling, but according to Kratz, he sorted parts on a raised platform, so he didn't have to perform those tasks.

Sure, unless he dropped a part, or had to tie a shoe lace, then he would either need help, or have a very good chance of injuring himself.



Link Posted: 9/29/2011 3:35:00 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 3:35:15 AM EST
Originally Posted By Muerte:
Who cares if he's fat.
.


The people who have to pay him.

You really think a guy who can barely walk from the parking lot to the building can perform as well as a person 1/4 his size?

Notice that he got motivated real quick after he was fired and lost 300 pounds.

Link Posted: 9/29/2011 3:35:22 AM EST

Originally Posted By wookie1562:
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.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 3:35:59 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/29/2011 3:37:00 AM EST by Admiral_Crunch]

Originally Posted By BM-ARM-DPMS-guns:
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.

This. If his performance was suffering due to his weight, then let him go because of poor performance. Sounds like his performance wasn't poor, or at least it wasn't documented as poor. Of course, it looks like we're only hearing his side of it, so far.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 3:36:59 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/29/2011 3:38:20 AM EST by Spade]
Originally Posted By wookie1562:
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.


Yuuuuppp.

I got promoted not long ago and we covered this. Basically, if the first time an employee is hearing about a problem is when you are firing them (or even at a performance review) then you've fucked up as a manager. Other than for something they did illegal or really really stupid, of course.

He'll win a suit, especially if he's been this weight for a while. If it really was having an impact on his job then it should be in those reports and his file.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 3:37:25 AM EST
So he is "entitled" to his job? Company should be able to fire you for any reason at any time. Their company, their rules.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 3:38:05 AM EST
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.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 3:38:47 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/29/2011 3:39:53 AM EST by BlackFox]
Originally Posted By stangboy555:

Originally Posted By Muerte:
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?


And that he's owed a job? That his employer should be forced to keep him?

ETA: the good performance reports are what's going to burn the company on this one. They don't have to keep the guy on, but they didn't play by the rules in letting him go.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 3:39:30 AM EST
Originally Posted By Muerte:
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.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 3:43:22 AM EST
Originally Posted By Lootie23:
So he is "entitled" to his job? Company should be able to fire you for any reason at any time. Their company, their rules.



Yeah, well, the real world rules and regs currently disagrees with you. Whether that is right or fair (it's not) is a different discussion. Plus, it's big companies like this that simply looovveee an overregulated work place so I couldn't care less (contrary to popular belief big businesses love government regulations because they can afford compliance and the little guys can't).
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 3:44:06 AM EST
Originally Posted By Lootie23:
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.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 3:44:45 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/29/2011 3:45:21 AM EST by Admiral_Crunch]

Originally Posted By Lootie23:
So he is "entitled" to his job? Company should be able to fire you for any reason at any time. Their company, their rules.

"I'm the new boss, and I hate black people. All blacks in my division are now fired." I have a feeling that wouldn't go over too well.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 3:45:30 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/29/2011 3:46:35 AM EST by RustedAce]
Originally Posted By jeep450:
Originally Posted By Lootie23:
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.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 3:46:47 AM EST

Originally Posted By Jasba:

Originally Posted By wookie1562:
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 agree with you on that we are really only hearing one side at the moment. Until it actually goes to trial, it is hard to say what the whole story is since the company will refrain from public statements to prevent saying something that could be twisted around and used against them. The lawyers for the plaintiff however, will be keen to make plenty of public statements before the trial in order to paint up their client in the best possible light (or lights since it may take a few to illuminate a man of his stature) and to paint up the company as being an evil, uncaring corporation.

Link Posted: 9/29/2011 3:55:21 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/29/2011 3:55:45 AM EST by Jdude]
Originally Posted By RustedAce:
Originally Posted By jeep450:
Originally Posted By Lootie23:
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.



Can't trust a man who doesn't like peeps.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 3:57:34 AM EST
I think its sad that "Fat" is considered a disability.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 3:58:20 AM EST
Employment.

At.

Will.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:00:50 AM EST
Originally Posted By stangboy555:

Originally Posted By Muerte:
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?


Well, being a skinny prick hasn't made Obama any better at his.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:16:45 AM EST
Originally Posted By vbfg135:
I guess the contractor is downsizing.



What you did there, I see it.

EBR666

Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:20:30 AM EST
No way could you ride your buffalo at 680...


Guy on a buffalooooo oooo...
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:23:30 AM EST

Originally Posted By BM-ARM-DPMS-guns:
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.

I'm going to go with this.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:24:38 AM EST

Originally Posted By BM-ARM-DPMS-guns:
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.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:26:52 AM EST
Originally Posted By Disintegr8or:

Originally Posted By 0ldGuy:
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.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:29:39 AM EST
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.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:36:36 AM EST
Originally Posted By RealFastV6:
Originally Posted By Disintegr8or:

Originally Posted By 0ldGuy:
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.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:38:17 AM EST
I'd fire him just to get him off the company insurance. A guy like that is going to be very, very expensive.

Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:40:34 AM EST
Is obesity considered a disability under "federal disability laws"?

How can a self-inflicted condition be a legitimate disability?
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:42:35 AM EST

Originally Posted By RustedAce:
Originally Posted By jeep450:
Originally Posted By Lootie23:
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.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:42:51 AM EST
"The filing of this lawsuit will send a strong message to employers that they cannot fire disabled employees based on perceptions and prejudice," Jim Sacher, the EEOC's regional attorney in Houston said in a press release.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/28/worker-allegedly-fired-for-being-overweight/?test=latestnews#ixzz1ZLfbvL4R


Since when is fat considered disabled? In Texas you do not need a reason to fire they should have told him they no longer needed him.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:45:56 AM EST

Originally Posted By jeep450:
He is a fat ass but at least he was a working fat ass.



I'm sure the company was told if they didn't get rid of him they would loose the health coverage that had.

They should definitely be allowed to fire him in that case. 680 Pounds? Thats beyond disability. That's self-inflicted.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:47:10 AM EST
Originally Posted By RustedAce:
Originally Posted By Muerte:
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 think he was using your special diet.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:49:06 AM EST
Originally Posted By Justa_TXguy:
I'd fire him just to get him off the company insurance. A guy like that is going to be very, very expensive.



No shit! I know that I am heavy, 255 and it affects my ability to do my job, but hell I own the company. I am trying to get down to 225 because at that weight I can do whatever I want to do. There is no way that his weight did not affect his job, how does one get to that girth?
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:52:41 AM EST
They were probably tired of him busting toilets in the men's room.

I think the real crime here is the fact he was paid $21 an hour to sort parts.
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:52:53 AM EST

Originally Posted By RustedAce:
My company fired everyone who didnt eat at least one peep when we put them in the company break room.
Would an employee get a fat raise if they were to beat all the others up and eat all the peeps themselves?

Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:53:47 AM EST
Originally Posted By stangboy555:

Originally Posted By Muerte:
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
Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:55:36 AM EST
Originally Posted By RustedAce:
Originally Posted By Muerte:
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.


something is wrong with you man

Link Posted: 9/29/2011 4:59:55 AM EST
Originally Posted By Max_Power:

Originally Posted By RustedAce:
Originally Posted By jeep450:
Originally Posted By Lootie23:
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.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 3
Top Top