Introduction
Back in 2008, researchers at Yale put numbers to something many people already felt but rarely named. Bias tied to body size shows up at work and in everyday interactions almost as often as racial discrimination. It’s not a fringe issue either. Complaints linked to weight regularly land with the EEOC. Women report it far more than men, nearly double, which only sharpens the picture.
Then there’s the trend line. According to data from the Obesity Action Coalition, this kind of discrimination didn’t just linger. It grew a lot. The number of reported cases increased by 66% between 1995 and 2005. 7 to 12 percent of individuals are thought to have personally experienced it in the modern era.
All of this lands in a legal environment that keeps shifting. New rules. New interpretations. Old assumptions are getting tested. So when bias against people of different body sizes starts getting legal attention, it raises a real question, especially in California. What does this actually mean for employers operating here? The question many employers keep circling back to is: “Is weight discrimination illegal?”
FEHA vs. ADA
Weight bias isn’t some fringe issue. It shows up in real workplaces every day. Hiring decisions, pay levels, promotions that never quite materialize. For many employees in the U.S., body size quietly shapes how they’re treated on the job.
When these cases end up in court, they usually aren’t framed as “weight discrimination” outright. Instead, they’re argued through the lens of disability law. Either an actual disability or one that the employer supposedly assumed existed.
At the federal level, asking “Is weight discrimination illegal?” usually leads to a narrow answer.
Under the ADA, the bar is high. A person has to show a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity. Not mildly or inconveniently. Or they need proof of a past impairment, or evidence that the employer regarded them as having one. For most overweight plaintiffs, courts haven’t been especially receptive. Claims tend to fail unless the individual is medically classified as “morbidly obese,” and even then, success is far from guaranteed.
California takes a different approach.
FEHA loosens the grip. It doesn’t insist on “substantial” limitation. A limitation is enough. That shift matters a lot. It means employees don’t have to squeeze themselves into the rigid framework the ADA demands. The answer to “Is weight discrimination illegal?” depends heavily on how FEHA is applied.
Under FEHA, disability can mean:
- A physical or mental condition that limits a major life activity — even if it doesn’t shut it down completely; or
- Having a record of such a condition, or
- Simply being perceived as having one.
That last point is where things really change. Perception alone can trigger protection. If an employer treats someone differently because of assumptions tied to body size, health, stamina, or capability, FEHA is far more willing to step in.
When employers compare federal and state law, the same question comes up again: “Is weight discrimination illegal?”
How FEHA Looks at It
Back in 2000, California lawmakers made their intentions pretty clear. With AB 2222, they said out loud, in statute, that the FEHA was meant to go beyond the federal ADA, not just mirror it. Broader coverage and fewer hoops.
The key change sounds small, but it isn’t. Under FEHA, an impairment doesn’t have to substantially limit a major life activity. It just has to limit it. That single word shift lowers the bar in a very real way.
What does that mean in practice? A plaintiff doesn’t have to prove they’re shut out of working altogether. It can be enough to show that an employer viewed them as having a condition that made one job, or even one task, harder. If weight (high or low) is tied to a medical condition, that perception can matter. And that’s where some attorneys see room to move. Courts have already wrestled with this logic in cases like Cassista v. Community Foods and Hallstrom v. Barker.
There’s another layer, too. California law doesn’t stop at “disability.” FEHA also protects people based on “medical conditions,” which the statute defines broadly. It includes genetic traits—identified genes, inherited characteristics, and even risk factors for diseases that haven’t shown symptoms yet. That definition sits in Cal. Govt. Code § 12926(i), and it gives plaintiffs another possible angle. An employee who is over- or underweight might point to medical or genetic evidence and argue that what an employer reacted to wasn’t size alone, but a protected medical condition.
So far, FEHA doesn’t come right out and say “weight” is a protected category. It stops short of that. But the direction is hard to miss. Other states have already crossed that line. And within California, cities like San Francisco and Santa Cruz have done so locally. The gap between what FEHA says explicitly and how it may be used in court isn’t as wide as it once was.
Employer’s Best Practices
California employers don’t really have the luxury of being casual here. FEHA is broad, it’s protective, and it doesn’t leave much room for guesswork. So caution isn’t optional, it’s baseline.
- Start with the basics. Look closely at your existing policies. Not just what’s written, but how those rules are actually applied day to day. On paper is one thing. In practice, it is another.
- Avoid assumptions. Weight (higher or lower) doesn’t tell you what someone can or cannot do. Deciding, even quietly, that a person “probably can’t handle” certain tasks because of how they look is where problems begin.
- Accommodation requests deserve particular care. Sometimes the issue won’t even be framed as “weight.” It might show up as fatigue, mobility limits, or difficulty performing a specific task. If that limitation is tied to a medical condition, FEHA protections may already be in play. Dismissing or minimizing those requests is risky.
- Tone matters too. Courtesy isn’t cosmetic. Policies that require respectful treatment aren’t just nice-to-haves anymore (regardless of appearance). They’re guardrails. And they need to be enforced, not just circulated.
- Supervisors, especially, need clarity. What’s acceptable humor? What crosses into bullying? Comments about bodies, diets, or “health” can slide quickly into inappropriate territory. Training should make that unmistakably clear.
- Wellness programs are another area where employers trip up. If participation feels mandatory, monitored, or quietly judged, you’re creating exposure. These programs should be voluntary and private. No exceptions.
- Job descriptions deserve a second look, too. Any physical or weight-related requirement needs to connect directly to the actual, essential functions of the job. It probably doesn’t belong there if it doesn’t.
The wider view is hard to ignore now. Weight bias isn’t something people are quietly overlooking anymore. It’s being talked about, challenged, and, in some places, written into law. A few cities have already stepped out in front. Others are watching closely. Employers who take the time to understand what’s coming — and make changes early — will have an easier road ahead.
This area is still shifting. And when the ground isn’t stable, moving thoughtfully matters more than moving fast. The safest assumption going forward is to act as though the answer to “Is weight discrimination illegal?” is already ‘yes.’
Conclusion
Weight discrimination in California sits in a gray zone that’s steadily shrinking. While FEHA doesn’t name weight outright, its broad definitions, emphasis on perception, and inclusion of medical conditions make it far more protective than many employers realize. The practical takeaway is simple but not always comfortable: decisions based on assumptions about body size are increasingly risky, even when those assumptions feel informal or unspoken.
As courts, cities, and lawmakers continue to test the boundaries, employers who rely on outdated ideas about ability, health, or “fit” are more likely to find themselves exposed. The safer path is not guessing where the line is, but acting as if scrutiny is already here. Clear policies, careful responses to accommodation requests, and consistent respect in daily interactions aren’t just compliance strategies — they’re insurance. In a legal landscape that’s still forming, restraint, awareness, and preparation offer far more protection than confidence alone.