Would you hire someone visibly anorexic?

[Ncncncncc]

I’m looking for honest (even if brutal) answers.

I've known two people who have had anorexia. When they were very unwell it was very obvious that they weren't just naturally very very thin. They would look awful. I always remember one woman at a family party at Christmas time in a house with heating on at full blast and she had a big woolly jumper on and she couldn't keep warm. She'd look absolutely awful and it was obvious she was very ill. Thank god she has since made a great recovery. Anyway my point being that being really thin wouldn't necessarily make me think anorexia. Maybe the OP just looks very unwell and maybe seemed tired or distracted . We don't know

Unfortunately, for some businesses it’s just not possible for them to take on someone with an obvious, active mental health issue. Time off/not being able to work/finding cover isn’t always possible.

I’ve taken on someone who, after being employed, disclosed to me some very severe mental health issues. We were a small team. She needed constant time off for appointments and couldn’t come to work and there wasn’t anyone else who could take on her role. It was an impossible situation and put the business under huge pressure.

of course, we all have the right to work, but there are lots of other people involved in a team and they have lives and stuff going on too. One persons illness shouldn’t trump everything else.

It's also worth pointing out that trying to prove that someone didn't get the job because of their anorexia would be practically impossible.

Yes. With some trepidation admittedly. Though there have been some hiccups along the way (too tired to do all physical elements of the job). Turns out to have been the absolute best decision. She is in recovery, doing well, and is an amazing staff member. Best of luck in your search and your recovery. It is possible

The key word here is reasonable. The law recognises that not all disabilities can be accommodated, and that’s as it should be. But as a former employment adviser l can tell you that I’ve seen cases where employers have put every obstacle imaginable in the path of employees who have become disabled while in service, and have made very little effort to accommodate even simple needs. Tribunals tend to have a very different idea of what is reasonable than the employers involved in such cases.

I've worked with four people over the years who I know had anorexia at the time. They were very thin.
All four (in different companies, at different times, over the course of more than 20 years) were excellent at their jobs and were extremely dedicated and hard-working colleagues who were also great to work with on a personal level too.
If someone can do the job then the fact they appear to have an eating disorder wouldn't put me off hiring them. At the end of the day, lots and lots of people have complex medical conditions and disabilities that are completely invisible. I have one myself. It would be daft to single out the person who "looks" unwell for fear that they might not do the job well/take too much leave etc.

But OP doesn’t know this person IS anorexic or has any MH issues?

She may just have crones, or recently been diagnosed with hyperthyroidism and GP hasn’t got the thyroid meds right yet? Or anything, really.

I work in HR. I know what it means.

If you rejected someone for a job on the basis they had a disability, without even exploring reasonable adjustments, as some on this thread have already said they would, that's clear cut discrimination, end of story.

Naturally proving it is difficult but it doesn't make it right.

Absolutely. Just no differentiating between 2p0k turnover and 200mil turnover. As I said. Reasonable adjustments are reasonable.

Can't see how you'd know that at interview stage unless they told you, which they'd be under no obligation whatsoever to do.

I hired someone with fibromyalgia, liver disease and mental health issues. She was fab when she was in but her sickness was high. I’m incredibly proud of how I supported her to be the best she could be and helped her reduce her sickness levels and increase her confidence. Still friends despite not working together anymore but managing her showed me the strength of compassion in getting the best out of someone. So, yes, I would.

Thank you for all the responses.

I am not looking to prove anything or take them to a tribunal.

I personally (maybe because I am suffering) can tell if someone else is struggling with anorexia and not just very thin.

This is what I do for a living, I really don't need ACAS links.

The thing is, sometimes you can't make any reasonable adjustments. Not all workplaces are set up for that, for a whole number of reasons.

If you know that during the interview, then the reality is you have no choice but to say no.

What's reasonable varies depending on the business, though - it's not black and white.

In 15 years working in HR, often with tiny charities who financially haven't got a pot to piss in, I've never yet come across a workplace who absolutely couldn't put in place any reasonable adjustments in place at all.

Many employers are astonishingly lazy and unimaginative on this issue.

That's what I said before as well

I will bow out because MN employment advice here is like MN diet advice....

You'll get something. Keep plugging away.

(It seems to usually be an orthorexia thing to insist slim is indistinguishable from clinically struggling. Just ignore.)

The OP is the one who is anorexic! RTFT.

I'm sure they are - I'm not disputing that at all.

But I do think there are some businesses out there where you can't make reasonable adjustments for disabilities - generally places that aren't office based and that require full physical mobility.

Many reasonable adjustments have no bearing whatsoever on physical ability so I disagree.

I’ve been called out on it too despite being a former employment adviser. It’s not a question of ‘trying’ to find reasonable adjustment. Employers have to engage properly with disability equality law or face the consequences. My field was mainly supporting employees who had become disabled in service, and in my experience tribunals had very different ideas as to what constituted ‘reasonable’ from those of most of the employers involved.

Okay.

So, if someone works in a doggy daycare centre or a kennel and has an accident which means they need to use a wheelchair for the rest of their lives, what adjustment would you expect the daycare/kennel to make?

Bearing in mind that the workers need to be able to walk the dogs, get down on the floor with the dogs, clean the kennels, separate potential fights, provide canine first aid and potentially deal with injured dogs on their own with no support from anyone else.

I'm genuinely curious as I don't see how it can work. You need to be able to walk, run, get down on your hands and knees etc. on a daily basis.

So you think all disabled people are limited to office work and jobs where full mobility isn’t required ? God help us all. It’s no wonder unemployment among disabled people is at such high levels if attitudes like this still prevail.