Would you hire someone visibly anorexic?

[Ncncncncc]

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

Yes, and I'm saying if an employee became disabled whilst working for you, you'd have to show you'd considered all alternatives before dismissal.

I'm responding to a particular scenario put forward by a PP.

What other impacts do you foresee?

@itstheendoftheworldasweknowitnow has mentioned how difficult it can be working with an employee who is anorexic in her post at 18.58.

Nothing that the law would care about, though, as I say. I'm sure there are also people who would struggle because they've had issues with eating themselves in the past, or because their child/sibling/parent has struggled with anorexia.

As I said, I know the law wouldn't care but it would maybe explain the "no" answers. Not everything is about discrimination, sometimes it's about personal experience and emotions too.

@Plumeface
Actually that was exactly what I wanted to ask you - what are reasonable adjustments in the case of something like anorexia, with both physical and mental aspects? And must the business be flexible in accommodating changing needs?

@Ncncncncc

What kind of work do you do, OP?

I did ask upthread but it may have been missed - what happens if the only alternative role you can offer is on a very part-time basis when the previous role was full-time?

This is what reasonable adjustment is in some cases. It would be a question of whether the role could reasonably be modified to swap the more physical elements and assign them to other staff in return for tasks the employee could do sitting down. As a very basic example l was involved in reassigning tasks for an employee who had developed rheumatoid arthritis. She worked in an office and as well as desk based duties she had responsibilities for ordering and distributing stationery and office equipment, which included ordering and replenishing sanitary products in the ladies toilets. She was also responsible for postal duties, and there was some errand running involved.

The range of duties across the office was looked at and the more physical tasks were distributed among other staff, and this lady took on some of their desk based duties instead and received training in computer centred procedures. Reasonable adjustment achieved by applying common sense and empathy.

It depends on the individual- it would be for them to put forward what would help them.

But for eating disorders things like being allowed not to go to team lunches would be a starting point, or being able to take lunch earlier or later so as not to have to watch others eating, or a longer lunch break if they need to eat slowly.

Your personal experience and emotions don't enter into it tbh, discrimination is discrimination, and someone making negative judgements about a potential employee they don't even know yet on the basis they'd previously known someone with the same condition, to the extent they'd deny them a job really should never be allowed anywhere near recruitment or staff management.

This is where you said it. No-one is extrapolating anything.

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.

You're missing my point.

What people say they would do on an anonymous forum with no legal consequence isn't necessarily how they would behave in real life situations such as the workplace.

Nobody is perfect and everyone has emotions and personal experiences that influence their behaviour and answers to questions like this. That doesn't mean they wouldn't behave correctly and legally in real life.

Yes, and I used the words "some" and "generally" - not "all" and "always".

Well if you're asked "would you hire someone with anorexia" and they reply "no I wouldn't", it's hard to draw any other inference really.

Personal experience and emotions can be discriminatory too. As in the appalling post upthread in which the poster made the shocking generalisation that she couldn’t eat with anorexics because they all had a disgusting way of talking about food. In a workplace setting that would be discrimination.

I guess I chose not to take it quite so literally.

Of course they can be.

But what people express on an anonymous internet forum isn't necessarily what they'd say (and do) in real life. It's two different scenarios.

What happens if the role you can offer only covers limited hours when that person used to work full-time? Are they obliged to accept? Can they sue you for discrimination if you only offer limited hours going forward?

@Ncncncncc my sincere apologies. I think I read down the thread, got distracted by kids/dogs and stepped away - and when I came back and composed my comment it was in reply to another post.

To correct my reply - I would bloody well hope no-one would make a judgement about your thinness - if you’ve not declared your anorexia in the application it is none of their business, as there could be any number of reasons for why you are slimmer than most.

As others have stated, if it becomes an issue when/if you offered a job, you are protected by the disabilities act and can ask for reasonable accommodations.

The question is really, do you feel ready to go back to work, and to work full time? You may find it is really good for you to get out, meet new people, be distracted, but you need to feel you are in the right place and supported. There is usually a probationary period, so if you get offered a role, I’d suggest giving it a try and taking it day by day.

FYI there is an organisation that supports people with MH issues returning to work, the Richmond Fellowship, who were great with my DD. They are great at holding your hand through CV prep, application process and counselling about the types of jobs you would find easier to manage. I’d recommend contacting them at https://www.richmondfellowship.org.uk/

Ok. Back in.. They would impact on cost due to having to hire extra person OR that the situation would cause harm to current employees by covering extra - stress, burnout etc. Harm to new or existing employees, and stress is a harm at a pimt, is reasonable excuse.

I know OP asked for brutal honesty but this thread cannot be helpful, surely.

I wouldn't be making any assumptions because someone was very slim/appeared underweight, it could be anorexia/bulimia, I know family/friends with both Crohn's and colitis whose weight can drop, someone may have recovered from illness or surgery, or addiction, they could've been through since kind of trauma, I know in the last few months my gran was alive my mum lost a lot of weight due to the stress of it all. If the person was right for the job, interviewed well I wouldn't be bothered about their weight, at either end of the scale.

l would have thought that if a wheelchair user applied via the jobcentre for any vacancy clearly beyond their capabilities and for which reasonable adjustment was clearly not possible, they would be tactfully dissuaded from applying and would perhaps qualify for additional help in finding something suitable. I wouldn’t imagine it would be in the interests of the jobcentre - or disabled people themselves - to waste an employers’ time and risk them taking their business elsewhere.

It's not if you're making the assumption they would cause stress to other employees before they've even taken the job, on the basis of what they look like, when they've not even disclosed to you they have anorexia.

Why would they have to hire an extra employee?

Genuinely? You don’t know what visibly anorexic looks like?

@Janetime I know what visually very underweight looks like, how do you know how they got there?