Given that a determination spins exclusively toward sex, the newest routine is a violation from Title VII
Y. 1978), an authorities department’s application of various other minimum top requirements for males instead of people are located to comprise gender discrimination
In Commission Decision No. 79-19, CCH Employment Methods Publication ¶ 6749, a male, 5’6″ extreme, challenged the effective use of the minimum, 5’5″ lady and you can 5’9″ male, top specifications and you may so-called when the guy was in fact a woman the guy might have eligible to an authorities cadet status. The new respondent can either introduce an effective uniform height specifications you to does not have a bad impression according to battle, gender, otherwise national origin, otherwise present that the peak specifications constitutes a corporate necessity.
Into the Payment Decision Zero. 76-30, CCH A position Strategies Publication ¶ 6624, this new Percentage discovered zero proof bad impact up against girls with respect so you’re able to a clean unsupported allegation out-of job denial predicated on intercourse, because free chat room in estonian of a minimum level requisite, in which discover zero simple peak coverage, and no you to definitely got previously become refuted according to level. And, there was zero evidence of different treatment. The last incumbent, this new selectee, as well as the asking party was in fact the lady, so there is actually no facts one to a smaller men wouldn’t also have been refuted.
The court in U.S. v. Lee way Engine Cargo, Inc., 7 EPD ¶ 9066 (D.C. Ok. 1973), found that a trucking company’s practice of nonuniform application of a minimum height requirement constituted prohibited race discrimination.
(c) Unfavorable Effect –
In early decisions, the Commission found that because of national significance, it was appropriate to use national statistics, as opposed to actual applicant flow data, to establish a prima facie case. The Commission also found that many of the employer proffered justifications for imposing minimum height requirements were not adequate to establish a business necessity defensemission Decision No. 71-1529, CCH EEOC Decisions (1973) ¶ 6231; Commission Decision No. 71-2643, CCH EEOC Decisions (1973) ¶ 6286; and Commission Decision No. 71-1418, CCH EEOC Decisions (1973) ¶ 6223. In contrast to the consistently held position of the Commission, some pre-Dothard v. Rawlinson, supra court cases came to different conclusions. Smith v. Troyan, 520 F.2d 492, 10 EPD ¶ 10,263 (6th Cir. 1975); Castro v. Beecher, 459 F.2d 725, 4 EPD ¶ 7783 (1st Cir. 1972). The Supreme Court in Dothard v. Rawlinson, supra, however, agreed with the Commission’s position and used national statistics to find that minimum height and weight requirements were discriminatory and that unsupported assertions about strength were inadequate to constitute a business necessity defense.
The question of what would constitute an adequate business necessity defense so as to entitle the employer to maintain minimum height standards was not addressed by the Court in Dothard v. Rawlinson, supra. On a case-by-case basis, Commission decisions and court cases have determined what things do not constitute an adequate business necessity defense. The EOS should therefore refer to the ples set out in the following section for guidance. Where, however, the business necessity of a minimum height requirement for airline pilots and navigators is at issue, the matter is non-CDP, and the Office of Legal Counsel, Guidance Division should be contacted for assistance.
Analogy (1) – R, police department, had a minimum 5’6″ height requirement for police officer candidates. R’s police force was 98% White male, and 2% Black male. There were no female or Hispanic officers, even though the SMSA was 53% female and 5% Hispanic. CPs, female and Hispanic rejected job applicants, filed charges alleging that their rejections, based on failure to meet the minimum height requirement, were discriminatory because their protected groups were disproportionately excluded from consideration. To buttress this argument, they introduced statistics showing that on a national basis, while only 3% of Black or White males were excluded by the 5’6″ requirement, 87% of females and 88% of Hispanics were excluded. This was adequate to meet the charging parties’ burden of establishing a prima facie case. In its defense the respondent had its supervisory personnel testify that the minimum height requirement was necessary for the safe and efficient operation of its business. According to respondent, taller officers enjoyed a psychological advantage and thus would less often be attacked, were better able to subdue suspects, and could better observe field situations. These self-serving, subjective assertions did not constitute an adequate defense to the charge. They did not fairly and substantially relate to the performance of the duties of a police officer. Accord Horace v. Town of Pontiac, 624 F.2d 765, 23 EPD ¶ 31,069 (6th Cir. 1980), and Leading edge Justice Community Inc. v. Hughes, 471 F. Supp. 670, 20 EPD ¶ 30,077 (D.C. Md. 1979).
