We, as a nation, are getting fat.This fact is becoming harder to avoid, as 64.5 percent of Americans are overweight, according to the American Obesity Association.As America’s waistline expands, so do the number of ethical dilemmas regarding the overweight.The increased number of overweight workers is leading employers to face questions about when it is appropriate to fire an obese person. The answer, as usual, is complicated. If people are able to fulfill their job requirements, they should not lose their jobs – this includes the obese.  If a person is fired for no reason other than their weight, discrimination is the only word that accurately describes their firing.If, however, a person’s weight interferes with their ability to perform, then there is nothing discriminatory about letting them go. The argument about weight-based discrimination recently came to a head with the reinstatement of Bellevue, Neb., police officer and traffic cop Christopher Parent.Parent was fired in 2007 after he performed badly enough in a combat shooting exercise to elicit complaints from his fellow officers.These complaints resulted in an internal investigation, after which Parent was fired because of his inability to display a “high level of physical, mental, and emotional conditioning,” according to the Omaha World Herald. Parent is 5 feet 9 inches tall and weighs more than 300 pounds.The officer’s firing created quite a stir when a video of the damning performance test was released to and aired on Omaha television news network KETV. The video shows Parent struggling — and at one point failing — to rise from a kneeling position.Despite the embarrassingly low level of fitness, Capt. Herb Evers of the Bellevue Police Department pointed out that Parent’s exercise was dangerous.The captain noted the officer’s gun “was all over the place” as he struggled to get to his feet.  Last March, however, The Nebraska Court of Appeals ruled to reinstate Parent.The Court argued the obese officer fulfilled the “only objective requirement posed” in the Department’s Wellness Conditioning Manual.The city argued the policy is outdated – it has since been removed from the regulations.”Parent’s termination was reversed on a policy technicality,” said Michael Polk, the city’s attorney. “This reversal is much like when criminal convictions are overturned on legal technicalities. It is ironic that an individual sworn to uphold the law uses a policy technicality to continue to ignore his personal physical condition, like a criminal using a loophole in the law to escape punishment.”If the department does not appeal to the Supreme Court, Parent could be back patrolling the streets in a few months.The Court’s decision is not only wrong, but dangerous for both the Bellevue citizens and Parent himself.The recording of Parent’s performance should be all the evidence required to keep him out of the field. It’s obvious the department’s issues with him are more than prejudice or discrimination based on his weight – if the officer has to struggle simply to get to his feet, does he have any hope of catching a fleeing criminal?  And, more urgently, it isn’t safe for Parent or those around him that even simple maneuvers require him to wave his arms — and his gun — around wildly. If Parent were being fired simply for being a little pudgy, the Court’s decision would be understandable.But Parent is definitely not able to pursue his job – or anyone else – properly, and thus his firing is justified. Matthew Albright is a 20-year-old political communications sophomore from Baton Rouge.–Contact Matthew Albright  at [email protected]