<p>^^This is exactly why their statement and policy is so stupid - because being over age 40 is a Protected Class. So while hiring on the basis of “pleasing to the eye” in theory is not illegal, refusing to hire anyone over age 40 is. Since the former can probably be shown to be a surrogate for for the latter in the company’s actual hiring practice, they stand to get in trouble if anyone cares to make a fuss about it.</p>
<p>I interpret “pleasing to the eye” as being reasonably attractive / well-groomed and pleasant / outgoing, not necessarily young.</p>
<p>In healthcare, there is a minimum requirement that the employees at least appear to be “healthy.” They also need to be able to work fast. This does not exclude slightly overweight or anyone up to about 60 years old. </p>
<p>That being said, my eye doctor’s employees are all young females and all gorgeous. His office is clean, spacious and bright. He has the reputation as the best in the area but, obviously, has assembled a “customer experience” that is more than just eye care.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>My H is a doctor in private practice and some of his front-desk employees do not appear “healthy”. There are a few who are substantially overweight (I’m not talking a few pounds here and there, I’m talking 100+ lbs overweight). There are enough overweight doctors and nurses that I don’t believe that healthcare employers are really adhering to any such guideline.</p>
<p>After the process is concluded, I would suggest she contact the group’s HR director and let them know of this and that it could be construed as an EEOC violation. If it was the HR director, then she should contact the most senior doctor and let them know. Many people who interview others are not fully informed on what they can/can’t say from a legal perspective.</p>
<p>At the end of an interview for a job I really wanted 15 yrs ago, I somehow mentioned my kids and the interviewer (who was an investment professional and would have been my boss) asked me “and are you going to have another?”. I was so shocked that I blurted out something like “two is enough”. After a few days, I called him up to let him know how uncomfortable his question made me and that it was in violation of EEOC.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>That’s the reasonable interpretation, and it’s probably what the guy would say he meant when he said it. But if the company’s actual hiring practice shows that people over 40 and/or members of minority races or ethnicities never make the “pleasing to the eye” cut, then the company could be on the wrong side of the law.</p>
<p>PG- I should have been more specific as I have a habit of skipping details - it’s my wife’s primary care office and a lot of others I know that have that bias. Healthcare is a big enough field to absorb all types. My wife worked at a practice staffed by a bunch of slow moving, overweight smokers in a dingy, outdated office. When she opened her own, she swore it would be a better experience. She considered it disingenuous to be preaching healthy lifestyles while everyone around her was obviously not following one. They now get a lot of compliments on their office and the staff. </p>
<p>She fired a MA for smelling like cigarettes. It turns out she had lied about smoking during the interview. </p>
<p>I would only hire a personal traimer who is in shape. I only buy food from places that appear to be clean.</p>
<p>It’s not illegal discrimination to hire based on looks as long as it doesn’t move into the category of a “protected” class- i.e. disability, race, sex etc. It was tacky to mention it in the interview, though.</p>