R’s unjustified notions render their actions discriminatory because the their differences are considering sex

(2) Determine the Title VII basis, elizabeth.g., race, color, sex, national origin or religion, of the complaint, and the issues or allegations as they relate to a protected Title VII status.

(2) A report on the new employer’s staff demonstrating safe Label VII updates because refers to access to height and you will pounds criteria;

(3) An announcement from explanations or justifications having, or protections to help you, use of height and pounds standards because they connect with real job requirements performed;

(4) A determination of what the justification is based on, we.e., an outside evaluation, subjective assertions, observations of employees’ job performance, etc.; and

(c) National analytics on top and you will pounds extracted from the us Agency from bgclive messages Health and Appeal: Federal Cardio getting Fitness Analytics is actually connected. The data are located in leaflets titled, Progress Analysis out-of Crucial Wellness Statistics, Zero. step three (November 19, 1976), without. fourteen (November 30, 1977). (Select Appendix I.)

621.8 Cross Sources

* Pick including the recommendations contained in the important fitness statistics inside Appendix We which shows differences in federal height and you can pounds averages predicated on sex, age, and you can race.

As a result, except into the rare occasions, charging you functions trying to difficulty level and you can lbs standards do not need certainly to let you know an adverse influence on the secure group or class of the usage of actual candidate move or solutions studies. That’s, they do not have to show one to inside the a certain business, within the a particular locale, a particular employer’s records reveal that it disproportionately excludes her or him as away from minimal level otherwise lbs criteria.

The Court found that this showing of adverse impact based on national statistics was adequate to enable her to establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination. The employer failed to meet this burden. The employer’s contention that the requirements bore a relationship to strength were found to be inadequate absent evidence showing a correlation between height and weight requirements and strength. The Court went on to suggest that, if the employer wanted to measure strength, it should adopt and validate a test that measures strength directly. (This problem is discussed further in § 621.6, below.)

Example (2) – R, police department, had a minimum height requirement for females but not for males because it did not believe females, as opposed to males, under 5’8″ could safely and efficiently perform all the duties of a police officer. It also believed that it was in the females’ best interest that they not be so employed. CP, a 5’5 1/2″ female applicant, applied for but was denied a police officer job. R alleges that its concern for the well-being and safety of females mandated the rejection. R indicated that it felt males of any height could perform the job but that shorter females would not get the respect necessary to enable them to safely perform the job.

Analogy (2) – R, city bus company, had a 5’7″ minimum height requirement for its drivers. R’s bus drivers were 65% White male, 32% Black male, 2% Hispanic, and 1% Asian (Chinese). There were no female bus drivers in R’s employ even though females constituted the largest percentage of potential employees in the SMSA from which R recruited. Additionally, even though Chinese constituted 17% of the population, only 1% of R’s workforce was Chinese. CPs, female and Chinese applicants rejected because they were under the minimum height, filed a charge against R alleging sex and national origin discrimination. Conceding that the CPs had established a prima facie case, R defended on the ground that meeting the minimum height was a business necessity. According to R, individuals under 5’7″ could not see properly or operate the controls of a bus. By way of rebuttal, CPs argued that R could cure that problem by installing adjustable seats on some vehicles and to a lesser extent, adjustable steering wheels. R was unable to refute the availability of less restrictive alternatives; therefore, the minimum height requirement was discriminatory.

For a discussion of Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321, 14 EPD ¶ 7632 (1977), the EOS should refer to § 621.1(b)(2)(iv).

The court in Laffey v. Northwest Air companies, Inc., 366 F.Supp. 763, 6 EPD ¶ 8930 (D.C. D.C. 1973) (other issues, but not this issue, were appealed), when faced with a maximum height requirement, concluded that different maximum height requirements for males and females violates the Act. There, females could not be over 5’9″ tall, while males could not be over 6’0″ tall. Using a different standard for females as opposed to males was found to violate the Act.

In Dothard v. Rawlinson, supra and Meadows v. Ford System Co., 62 FRD 98, 5 EPD ¶ 8468 (D.C. Ky. 1973), the respondent was unable to show the existence of a valid relationship between its minimum weight requirement and the strength necessary to perform the job in order to prove a business necessity defense.

Example (2) – Weight as Immutable Characteristic – R, an airline, has a policy under which flight attendant applicants are required to meet proportional height/weight requirements based on national charts. CP, a Black female applicant who was not hired for a vacant flight attendant position, filed a charge alleging adverse impact based on race. According to CP, Black females, because of a trait peculiar to their race and not subject to their personal control, weigh proportionately more as a class than White females. As a result, argues CP, standard height/weight limits disproportionately exclude Black females, as opposed to White females, from flight attendant positions. Investigation revealed that although only two out of 237 female flight attendants employed by R are Black, there is no statistical or other evidence indicating that Black females as a class weigh more than White females. (The issue of whether adverse impact exists in this situation is non-CDP; therefore, the Office of Legal Counsel, Guidance Division should be contacted when it arises.)

After that, the Legal concluded that the burden and therefore shifted to your respondent were to show that what’s needed constituted a corporate requirement having a manifest relationship to use under consideration

Only when it can be determined as a matter of law that it is a question of weight as a mutable characteristic as in the Cox, supra type situation presented in Examples 1 and 3 above should further processing cease; otherwise as in Examples 2 and 4 above processing should continue.

Within the Payment Decision Zero. 80-5 (unpublished), the latest Payment found that there is lack of analytical studies offered to conclude you to Black female, compared to Light women whose weight is distributed in another way, is disproportionately omitted off hostess ranking because of their real measurements. In that case, a black people try refused once the she exceeded the most deductible cool size in terms of the woman height and you may pounds.

(1) Safe a detailed statement delineating what kind of peak and you will weight criteria are now being put and how he’s used. Including, however, there is a minimum top/weight demands, are people actually becoming rejected based on physical power.