(f) Judge Cases
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 Traces, 14 EPD ¶ 7600 (S.D. Fla. 1976), aff’d, 14 EPD ¶ 7601 (5th Cir. 1976). (See also EEOC v. Delta Sky Lines, Inc., ___ F. Supp. ___, 24 EPD ¶ 31,455 (S.D. Tex. 1980), dec. toward rem’d out-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. Around the world v. United Heavens Lines, Inc., 408 F. Supp. 1107, 21 EPD ¶ 30,419 (E.D. N.Y. 1979).
Gerdom v. Continental Air Lines Inc., 692 F.2d 602, 30 EPD ¶ 33,156 (9th Cir. 1982), vacating simply committee view inside the, 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. Eastern Heavens Outlines Inc., 430 F. Supp. 884, 17 EPD ¶ 8462 (E.D. Va. 1977), aff’d for 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 Association off Airline Attendants v. Ozark Air 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) General –
Real power standards since the chatted about within this section differ out of minimal weight lifting criteria being chatted about inside § 625, BFOQ. The brand new physical stamina requirements talked about right here involve times when proportional, minimal level/pounds criteria are thought an excellent predictor or way of measuring bodily electricity, as opposed to the ability to elevator a specific specific minimum weight.
In the place of proportional, minimal, height/pounds standards otherwise dimensions because a foundation getting evaluation candidates, businesses along with could possibly get attempt to believe in certain real function otherwise speed assessment. The latest imposition of such evaluating can result in the exception out-of a great disproportionate level of women and a lowered extent other protected communities predicated on gender, national provider, or competition.
(b) Actual Energy and you can Proportions Standards –
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 purpose could be achieved by adopting and validating a test for applicants that measures strength directly.»
Example (1) – Jail Correctional Advisors – https://datingmentor.org/pl/bhm-randki/ 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.