(f) Legal Circumstances
The court in Cox (cited below), when faced with the argument that statistically more women than men exceed permissible height/weight in proportion to body size standards, concluded that, even if this were true, there was no sex discrimination because weight in the sense of being over or under weight is neither an immutable characteristic nor a constitutionally protected category. Cox v. Delta Heavens Outlines, 14 EPD ¶ 7600 (S.D. Fla. 1976), aff’d, 14 EPD ¶ 7601 (5th Cir. 1976). (See also EEOC v. Delta Heavens Outlines, Inc., ___ F. Supp. ___, 24 EPD ¶ 31,455 (S.D. Tex. 1980), dec. into rem’d of, ___ F.2d ___, 24 EPD ¶ 31,211 (5th Cir. 1980).)
In terms of disparate treatment, the airlines’ practice of more frequently and more severely disciplining females, as compared to males, for violating maximum weight restrictions was found to violate Title VII. Air-line Pilots Ass’n. All over the world v. Joined Heavens Outlines, Inc., 408 F. Supp. 1107, 21 EPD ¶ 30,419 (E.D. N.Y. 1979).
Gerdom v. Continental Sky Traces Inc., 692 F.2d 602, 30 EPD ¶ 33,156 (9th Cir. 1982), vacating simply panel viewpoint inside, 648 F.2d 1223, 26 EPD ¶ 31,921 (9th Cir. 1981).
Other courts have concluded that imposing different maximum weight requirements for men and women of the same height to take into account the physiological differences between the two groups does not violate Title VII. Jarrell v. East Sky Traces Inc., 430 F. Supp. 884, 17 EPD ¶ 8462 (E.D. Va. 1977), aff’d for each and every curiam, 577 F.2d 869, 17 EPD ¶ 8373 (4th Cir. 1978).
In terms of health concerns, at least where different charts are used potentially rendering compliance by females more difficult and a health hazard, reference should be made to Connection out-of Journey Attendants v. Ozark Heavens Outlines, 470 F. Supp. 1132, 19 EPD ¶ 9267 (N.D. Ill. 1979). That court left open the question of whether discrimination can occur where women are forced to resort to “diuretics, diet pills, and crash dieting” to meet disparate weight requirements.
(a) Standard –
Physical fuel standards once the discussed within area are different out-of lowest weight lifting conditions which are talked about in § 625, BFOQ. The fresh new bodily strength conditions chatted about right here involve times when proportional, lowest peak/lbs criteria are thought an effective predictor otherwise way of measuring real power, rather than the power to lift a certain particular lowest weight.
Instead of proportional, minimal, height/weight standards otherwise size just like the a factor getting examination candidates, employers plus can get try to believe in some actual element otherwise agility evaluation. The newest imposition of such screening can lead to the latest difference from a good disproportionate level of lady in order to a diminished extent other secure organizations based on sex, national supply, otherwise competition.
(b) Physical Electricity and you can Size Requirements –
In many instances such as in Dothard v. Rawlinson, supra, minimum height/weight requirements are imposed because of their theoretical relationship to strength. Impliedly, taller, heavier people are also physically stronger than their shorter, lighter counterparts. However, such comparisons are simply unfounded. And, the Court in Dothard accordingly suggested that “[i]f the job-related quality that the [respondents] identify is bona fide, their https://datingmentor.org/dog-lover-dating/ purpose could be achieved by adopting and validating a test for applicants that measures strength directly.”
Analogy (1) – Jail Correctional Counselors – In Dothard v. Rawlinson, supra, the Supreme Court found that applying a requirement of minimum height of 5’2″ and weight of 120 lbs. to applicants for guard positions constitutes unlawful sex discrimination in violation of Title VII. Relying on national statistics, the Court reasoned that over forty (40) percent of the female population, as compared with only one percent of the male population, would be excluded by the application of those minimum requirements. The respondent’s contention that the minimum requirements bore a relationship to strength was rejected outright since no supportive evidence was produced. The Court suggested that, even if the quality was found to be job related, a validated test which directly measures strength could be devised and adopted.
Leave a Reply