Dear PAO,

My best friend who is an international flight steward for a certain airline developed a weight problem which prompted his employer to advise him to take an extended vacation to address it. Instead of losing weight, it was discovered that he had gained more. My best friend committed to losing weight within 60 days; however, he failed to do so. As a result, he was dismissed from his job for failing to comply with the company’s standards. Is weight requirement a valid condition of employment and not an act of discrimination? Was my best friend illegally dismissed because his weight was used as ground for the termination of his employment? Thank you for your response!

Dimples

Dear Dimples,

One of the issues in hiring and retaining employees is whether the employer has the prerogative to impose certain qualifications based on criteria such as race, sex, age, national origin, civil or marital status, physical appearance (such as a requirement on “pleasing personality” or height and weight), and the like. The general rule is that employment in particular jobs may not be limited to persons who meet any of these qualifications, unless the employer can show that the same are actual qualifications for performing the job. This type of requirement is called a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ).

The concept of a BFOQ is not foreign in Philippine jurisdiction. There are certain laws and pieces of jurisprudence which enunciate BFOQ or otherwise recognize the existence of circumstances similar thereto.

The Supreme Court held in the case of Yrasuegui vs. Philippine Airlines, Inc., (G.R. No. 168081, October 17, 2008, penned by Associate Justice Ruben T. Reyes) that:

“Employment in particular jobs may not be limited to persons of a particular sex, religion, or national origin unless the employer can show that sex, religion, or national origin is an actual qualification for performing the job. The qualification is called a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ). In the United States, there are a few federal and many state job discrimination laws that contain an exception allowing an employer to engage in an otherwise unlawful form of prohibited discrimination when the action is based on a BFOQ necessary to the normal operation of a business or enterprise. x x x

“In short, the test of reasonableness of the company policy is used because it is parallel to BFOQ. BFOQ is valid ‘provided it reflects an inherent quality reasonably necessary for satisfactory job performance.’ x x x

“Similarly, in Star Paper Corporation v. Simbol, the Supreme Court held that in order to justify a BFOQ, the employer must prove that (1) the employment qualification is reasonably related to the essential operation of the job involved; and (2) that there is factual basis for believing that all or substantially all persons meeting the qualification would be unable to properly perform the duties of the job. x x x”

To be specific in weight-related BFOQ, the abovementioned case explained that the objective of the imposition of weight standards for cabin crew is flight safety. The employer in this case was justified in dismissing its employee because of his obesity. It was provided in the case that:

“In other words, the primary objective of PAL in the imposition of the weight standards for cabin crew is flight safety. It cannot be gainsaid that cabin attendants must maintain agility at all times in order to inspire passenger confidence on their ability to care for the passengers when something goes wrong. It is not farfetched to say that airline companies, just like all common carriers, thrive due to public confidence on their safety records. People, especially the riding public, expect no less than that airline companies transport their passengers to their respective destinations safely and soundly. A lesser performance is unacceptable.

“The task of a cabin crew or flight attendant is not limited to serving meals or attending to the whims and caprices of the passengers. The most important activity of the cabin crew is to care for the safety of passengers and the evacuation of the aircraft when an emergency occurs. Passenger safety goes to the core of the job of a cabin attendant. Truly, airlines need cabin attendants who have the necessary strength to open emergency doors, the agility to attend to passengers in cramped working conditions, and the stamina to withstand grueling flight schedules.”

With regard to your question, the termination of your best friend as a flight steward may not be discriminatory and illegal. By understanding the concept of bona fide occupational qualification, jurisprudence requires the employer to prove two factors: (1) that the employment qualification is reasonably related to the essential operation of the job involved; and, (2) that there is a factual basis for believing that all or substantially all persons meeting the qualification would be unable to properly perform the duties of the job.

In relation to the situation of your best friend, the two factors appear to have been met. The weight standard by the airline company employer is for flight safety and is essential to the functions of a flight steward like opening emergency doors and attending to passengers in cramped working conditions. In the abovementioned case, it stated that “Being overweight necessarily impedes mobility. Indeed, in an emergency situation, seconds are what cabin attendants are dealing with, not minutes. Three lost seconds can translate into three lost lives. Evacuation might slow down just because a wide-bodied cabin attendant is blocking the narrow aisles. These possibilities are not remote.” Hence, the termination of your best friend due to his overweight problems may not be considered an act of discrimination. The weight standard of a flight steward is a valid condition or bona fide occupational qualification.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice was based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.

Thank you for your continued trust and support.

Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to [email protected]