(f) Judge Times
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 Sky Contours, 14 EPD ¶ 7600 (S.D. Fla. 1976), aff’d, 14 EPD ¶ 7601 (5th Cir. 1976). (See also EEOC v. Delta Sky Traces, Inc.,
F. Supp. , 24 EPD ¶ 31,455 (S.D. Tex. 1980), dec. to the 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. Worldwide v. United Air Traces, 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 to some extent panel thoughts from inside the, 648 F.2d 1223, 26 escort in Fargo 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 Air Outlines Inc., 430 F. Supp. 884, 17 EPD ¶ 8462 (E.D. Va. 1977), aff’d per 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 Organization regarding Trip Attendants v. Ozark Air Lines, 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 –
Physical strength standards since the chatted about within this part will vary out-of minimal lifting weights standards which can be discussed within the § 625, BFOQ. The newest actual fuel standards chatted about right here encompass situations where proportional, minimum peak/weight criteria are believed good predictor or way of measuring real fuel, as opposed to the capacity to elevator a particular particular minimal weight.
Unlike proportional, minimal, height/weight requirements otherwise proportions since the a basis to possess testing applicants, companies as well as can get you will need to trust various bodily ability or agility evaluation. This new imposition of these evaluating can result in new exception to this rule off good disproportionate quantity of ladies and also to a lesser the total amount almost every other protected communities considering intercourse, federal source, or competition.
(b) Physical Energy and Proportions Criteria –
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) – Prison 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.