An especially ugly kind of lawsuit

Take a good look at the photo to the right.

What do you think? Am I hot? Or not?

If tall, skinny dudes with ink-stained clothes and big ears are your thing, well, you're probably in the minority ... of the minority.

I bring this up not to provide stand-up material for the Strip's comedy clubs, but because, if one professor is to be believed, ugliness is the next big lawsuit lottery in America, a frontier that likely will lead to legal protections within the Americans with Disabilities Act, class actions and even affirmative action programs for the unattractive.

"In addition to whatever personal pleasure it gives you, being attractive also helps you earn more money, find a higher-earning spouse (and one who looks better, too!) and get better deals on mortgages," Daniel S. Hamermesh, an economics professor at the University of Texas, wrote in The New York Times in his Aug. 27 commentary, "Ugly? You May Have a Case."

"Each of these facts has been demonstrated over the past 20 years by many economists and other researchers. The effects are not small: one study showed that an American worker who was among the bottom one-seventh in looks, as assessed by randomly chosen observers, earned 10 to 15 percent less per year than a similar worker whose looks were assessed in the top one-third -- a lifetime difference, in a typical case, of about $230,000. ...

"Why this disparate treatment of looks in so many areas of life? It's a simple matter of prejudice."

Yes, we certainly do discriminate when it comes to looks. And thanks to an ever-growing, ever-present mass media, which puts attractive models, TV personalities and performers in front of our faces every day, we have fairly widespread agreement on who's good-looking and who isn't.

According to Hamermesh, who wrote the new book "Beauty Pays," research shows very little variation in opinions on classes of attractiveness. "Someone whom you consider good-looking will be viewed similarly by most others; someone you consider ugly will be viewed as ugly by most others. In one study, more than half of a group of people were assessed identically by each of two observers using a five-point scale; and very few assessments differed by more than one point."

Which brings us back to my own relative hotness. What would you rate me on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being Quasimodo and 5 being Brad Pitt? If I decide to sue my employer or a prospective employer, or any other entity that I believe has discriminated against me because of my looks, it will be up to you as a prospective juror to decide whether I'm disgusting enough to deserve a nice payday.

While Hamermesh's vision would amount to the greatest equalizer for the ugly since the invention of beer, it is difficult to imagine a more subjective and humiliating process.

It's easy enough to establish the age of people who bring age discrimination lawsuits. Same goes for gender, racial and weight discrimination cases -- you're a black woman or an Asian man. You're heavy or you're not. It takes a little testimony to establish whether you're gay or disabled, but those facts aren't likely to tie up a jury in days of deliberations.

Bringing an attractiveness discrimination lawsuit, however, would require that I admit under oath not just that I'm ugly, but really ugly. And my attorney would have to convince the jury that I'm hideous.

Lawyer: "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, please direct your attention to my client, a man with a face only a mother could love. My client is so ugly ..."

Jury: "How ugly is he?"

Lawyer: "My client is so ugly he went into a haunted house and walked out with a job application. I mean, he's so ugly his doctor is a veterinarian."

My attorney would have to prove that the defendant harmed me by giving preference to people better-looking than me. So we'd call forward a number of witnesses and argue that they're hot. The defense would say they're not.

Recall the scene from the movie "The Social Network" where Harvard student and future Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg creates a site that rates fellow undergraduates on a hotness scale, and you'll have some sense of what your job as a juror in such a case would entail.

Lest you think this is a joke, Hamermesh points out that parts of California and the District of Columbia already ban discriminating against someone based on attractiveness in hiring, promotions and housing, among other areas.

Yes, some people are better-looking than others. Some people also take better care of themselves than others. But many a woman and man will tell you that much of what makes someone attractive to them -- whether they're an employer or looking for a mate -- is confidence. And if you're willing to go to court to argue that you're nasty, well, that's a sure sign of someone lacking in self-assurance.

The reality TV landscape is awash in makeover shows. TLC's "What Not to Wear" provides undesirable slobs with a new wardrobe, a new haircut (and a little makeup for women) and an understanding of how different kinds of clothes emphasize good features and de-emphasize bad ones. Without undergoing plastic surgery or drastic weight loss, truly repulsive people become downright magnetic -- and for the first time in years, they feel confident. They don't feel ugly.

Hamermesh raises the legitimate concern that making the unattractive a protected class will inevitably reduce protections for other groups that have fought for special status. How long before no one gets equal protection under the law? You can't tell me College Republicans shouldn't get additional safeguards at UC-Berkeley.

Talk about who's hot and who's not is best suited for a singles bar or a locker room. Not a newspaper column. And certainly not a courtroom.

Glenn Cook (gcook@reviewjournal.com) is a Review-Journal editorial writer.