(f) Court 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 Air Traces, 14 EPD ¶ 7600 (S.D. Fla. 1976), aff’d, 14 EPD ¶ 7601 (5th Cir. 1976). (See also EEOC v. Delta Air Traces, Inc., ___ F. Supp. ___, 24 EPD ¶ 31,455 (S.D. Tex. 1980), dec. to your rem’d from, ___ 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 globe v. Joined Heavens Outlines, Inc., 408 F. Supp. 1107, 21 EPD ¶ 30,419 (E.D. N.Y. 1979).
Gerdom v. Continental Heavens Lines Inc., 692 F.2d 602, 30 EPD ¶ 33,156 (9th Cir. 1982), vacating in part panel advice inside, 648 F.2d 1223, 26 EPD ¶ 31,921 (9th Cir. 1981).
Other courts have concluded that imposing different maximum weight requirements https://hookupsearch.net/hookup-apps/ 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 Traces Inc., 430 F. Supp. 884, 17 EPD ¶ 8462 (E.D. Va. 1977), aff’d for every single 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 out-of Trip Attendants v. Ozark Air Traces, 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 requirements since the talked about in this point will vary out-of minimum weight lifting requirements which can be talked about from inside the § 625, BFOQ. The brand new bodily energy conditions talked about right here cover situations where proportional, minimal peak/lbs standards are believed an effective predictor otherwise measure of actual strength, as opposed to the capacity to elevator a certain specific lowest weight.
Rather than proportional, lowest, height/pounds requirements or dimensions once the a factor getting evaluation candidates, employers as well as may you will need to trust various actual ability otherwise speed testing. The latest imposition of such evaluating can lead to new exemption out-of a disproportionate quantity of females and also to a lesser the total amount almost every other secure communities considering sex, national resource, otherwise battle.
(b) Bodily Energy and you may 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.”
Analogy (1) – Jail Correctional Advisors – 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.