## Facts

- In November 1996, Karsten Kaltoft was hired by the Municipality of Billund, Denmark, as a childcare provider (childminder).
- Kaltoft was obese at the time of hiring and remained obese throughout his employment; his body mass index was reported to exceed 50.
- The municipality offered Kaltoft opportunities to attend fitness and training sessions; he lost weight and later regained it.
- In 2010, Kaltoft’s supervisor visited him several times and asked about his weight.
- Around the same period, Kaltoft cared for three children even though he was approved to care for four.
- In late 2010, the municipality dismissed Kaltoft. The dismissal letter stated the reason was a decline in the number of children requiring care.
- At a meeting on the day of dismissal, Kaltoft asked why he was being dismissed. In the follow-up discussion, his obesity was mentioned, but those present disagreed about the context and whether weight was part of the decision.
- Fag og Arbejde (FOA), a Danish trade union, brought a claim on Kaltoft’s behalf in the District Court in Kolding (retten i Kolding), alleging that the dismissal was based on obesity and therefore discriminatory.
- Kommunernes Landsforening (KL), the association of Danish municipalities, represented Billund in the proceedings.
- The Danish court stayed the case and referred questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) for a preliminary ruling on the meaning of EU non-discrimination law in employment.

## Issues

1. Does EU law recognize a general principle prohibiting discrimination on grounds of obesity as such in employment and occupation?
2. Can obesity constitute a “disability” within the meaning of Council Directive 2000/78/EC, so that adverse treatment linked to obesity may fall within the directive’s ban on disability discrimination?

## Decision

- The CJEU held that EU law does not lay down a general principle of non-discrimination on grounds of obesity as such in the field of employment and occupation.
- The CJEU held that obesity is not, by itself, a “disability” under Directive 2000/78/EC.
- The CJEU held that obesity can be a “disability” under Directive 2000/78/EC where it entails a long-term limitation resulting from physical, mental, or psychological impairments which, in interaction with barriers, may hinder full and effective participation in professional life on an equal basis with other workers.
- The CJEU left it to the referring Danish court to decide whether Kaltoft’s condition met that definition and, if so, whether the dismissal breached EU law as interpreted.

## Legal Principles

- Directive 2000/78/EC protects against discrimination only on the grounds listed in the directive (including disability); obesity is not listed as a separate protected ground.
- EU primary and secondary law do not create a stand-alone rule barring discrimination because a person is obese.
- “Disability” in Directive 2000/78/EC is a functional, EU-law concept aligned with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: it concerns long-term impairments that, together with barriers, may hinder equal participation in working life.
- Obesity does not automatically amount to a disability; the question is whether, in the конкрет case, the person’s condition leads to long-term limitations affecting participation in professional life.
- The origin of the condition (including arguments that it is “self-inflicted”) does not exclude disability status if the definition’s requirements are met.
- If obesity qualifies as a disability, the directive’s rules on disability discrimination apply, including the employer’s duty to provide reasonable accommodation unless it would impose a disproportionate burden.
- In a preliminary ruling, the CJEU interprets EU law, while the national court applies that interpretation to the facts and decides liability and remedies.

## Conclusion

The CJEU ruled that EU law does not forbid obesity discrimination as a separate category, but severe obesity may fall within Directive 2000/78/EC’s disability protections when it causes long-term impairments that limit equal participation at work; the Danish court must decide whether those conditions were met in Kaltoft’s dismissal.


Fag og Arbejde (FOA) v. Kommunernes Landsforening, C-354/13, 18 December 2014 (2014)