Recruiters discriminating against obese candidates

-

shutterstock

Recruiters are discriminating against obese job applicants, using their weight as a marker of work ethic and personality – this is the finding of employment law firm Thomas Mansfield’s study into prejudice at the recruitment stage.

Over half of HR and recruitment professionals admitted to finding obesity to be an undesirable trait, using it as a marker of personality and predicted work ethic. This highlights a potential disparity of attitudes towards obese candidates and could be leading to workers missing out on opportunities based on a superficial and stereotypical assessment, rather than a fair judgement of the candidate’s ability to do the job.

In light of the ongoing case of Karsten Kaltoft V Billund Kommune, Thomas Mansfield sought to gauge the level of negative stereotyping of the obese during the recruitment process, polling 100 HR and recruitment professionals.

HRreview Logo

Get our essential weekday HR news and updates.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Keep up with the latest in HR...
This field is hidden when viewing the form
This field is hidden when viewing the form
Optin_date
This field is hidden when viewing the form

 

The findings reveal a preference for candidates who are perceived as being of a ‘normal’ weight, as well as a tendency to judge candidates seen as being ‘obese’ as having a negative impact on the workplace and levels of productivity.

Other findings from the study also include:

  • 46% of HR and recruitment professionals believe that obesity can have a negative impact on workplace activity.
  • 56% of respondents found obesity to be a valuable marker when determining candidate character and predicted performance.
  • When faced with the option of two candidates with identical qualities, the only difference being that one is obese, 51% said they’d prefer to hire the ‘normal’ candidate.

These findings become especially worrying when recent NHS figures suggest that 61.9% of adults in the UK are either overweight or obese. This is clearly a sizeable amount of the country’s workforce, the talent of which may be squandered by a tendency to negatively stereotype. This point is further compounded by Thomas Mansfield’s poll finding that 32% of respondents found it hard to be impartial towards obese candidates.

Senior Partner at Thomas Mansfield, Neill Thomas, explained: “The findings of the study reveal the problem of bias faced by obese people during the recruitment and selection process which potentially means that the most suitably qualified candidate does not get chosen.

“This highlights that people continue to hold stereotypical assumptions that obese people are responsible for their own weight and any problems they suffer are self-inflicted – whereas it might be the case that there is an underlying medical condition.“

The case of Karsten Kaltoft V Billund Kommune is set to be a landmark case as a ruling in favour of Kaltoft could impact UK law for the benefit of the obese. At this point in time, there are no explicit laws protecting against obesity prejudice. Alternatively, a ruling against Kaltoft’s case could see this discrimination against obese candidates continue.

Mr Thomas went on: “I envisage that the judiciary would not want to enshrine in law any protection for people who are obese without any underlying medical condition as this could open the floodgates to other groups who consider they need special treatment such as short, tall, thin or people with ginger hair.

“Another problem to consider would be the side effects of any legislation protecting obese people. Smaller businesses could be the worst affected in having to pay the cost of adapting the workplace to accommodate obese people such as special car parking spaces, lifts, more rest breaks, wider chairs, adapted keyboards, choice of meals in the canteen etc.

“In order for obesity to become a protected characteristic in the same way as other disabilities it would need to be defined in law. Potentially, this is a difficult task and arguably not a task for the law makers but the medical profession.”

Latest news

Curtis Holmes: Payroll is the driver for employee engagement

Payroll has long been treated as a back-office necessity: essential, but not something that shapes culture or drives engagement. This no longer stands.

Labour market yet to show major AI impact on jobs, govt adviser says

A government economic adviser has challenged predictions of widespread AI-driven unemployment, arguing labour market data has yet to show disruption.

Young workers ‘pressured into signing NDAs after workplace injuries’

Workers say injuries are being hidden behind confidentiality agreements while financial pressures leave many afraid to challenge unsafe conditions.

CIPD recognises 30 HR leaders driving change across UK workplaces

The CIPD has unveiled its HR30 list for 2026, recognising senior people leaders whose work has delivered measurable impact across organisations and workforces.
- Advertisement -

Brits dream of being their own boss, but still cling to the monthly pay cheque, survey reveals

Britons say they like the idea of self-employment, but most still value the security and stability of traditional jobs.

AI Coaching Won’t Replace Managers. It Will Expose Coaching Debt.

As AI coaching expands, employers may gain a clearer view of where manager support is falling short.

Must read

Murray Furlong: A call for compassionate performance management

Performance management is rightly experiencing a radical overhaul. The structured, one-size-fits-all process of twice-yearly reviews, often perceived by busy managers as a necessary evil, has been denounced as formulaic, backwards-focused and subjective. In its place, pioneering employers such as Deloitte* are now advocating a continuous, ‘one-size-fits-one’ approach. But there’s an opportunity to take this even further.

Adam Nuckley: Don’t shoot the gender pay messenger

Is compulsory gender pay reporting really - as King’s College economics professor, Baroness Wolf, described - just “gesture politics” which “will do nothing whatsoever about the things that are really a problem for poorly paid women and which have nothing to do with widespread overt pay discrimination, for which there is no evidence at all any more anyway?”
- Advertisement -

You might also likeRELATED
Recommended to you