I've often wondered why height discrimination is ignored so much more than other types of discrimination. I understand why it's not as much of a hot topic, of course, but to be ignored this much seems strange.
Focusing on careers and the work place, some studies show that height has a greater effect on income and general success than gender and race. I've heard it said sometimes that workplace discrimination of both gender and race combined, don't match height alone.
There's many more studies than these, but here's two examples:-
The effect of physical height on workplace success... [J Appl Psychol. 2004] - PubMed result
Workplace rewards tall people with money, respect, UF study shows
There are some other forms of discrimination that are often ignored as well, such as attractiveness, name, voice etc.
The ultimate way of dealing with them all, seems to be deriving methods that take all the variables unrelated to job performance, and ignoring them for the purposes of income and promotions. It seems like sometimes, discrimination should be dealt with as one entity, rather than split into its many forms as it usually is.
It's a simple feminist principle. Hire the person who's best suited to the job, and who will perform the best at it. Sometimes that does involve discriminating based on gender, race, sexuality, height and such, but rarely is that the case. It likely involves proving each variable you judge with is actually correlated to job performance.
I'm sure there are many complexities and problems involved in eliminating such discrimination. And I'm sure many selection processes, say a senior staff member evaluating junior staff, are inherently riddled with prejudices and subjectivity, which may not be possible to remove any time soon, without crippling the complex process that such selections can often be for good reason.
There's also the argument that companies have the right to discriminate on those variables unrelated to job performance. Though I think it is in their best interests not to do so, regardless.