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
- Does EU law recognize a general principle prohibiting discrimination on grounds of obesity as such in employment and occupation?
- 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.