(f) Courtroom Circumstances
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 Air Traces, Inc., ___ F. Supp. ___, 24 EPD ¶ 31,455 (S.D. Tex. 1980), dec. for the rem’d off, ___ 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. Globally v. United Air Outlines, Inc., 408 F. Supp. 1107, 21 EPD ¶ 30,419 (E.D. N.Y. 1979).
Gerdom v. Continental Sky Traces Inc., 692 F.2d 602, 30 EPD ¶ 33,156 (9th Cir. 1982), vacating to some extent panel advice for 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. East 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 regarding Airline Attendants v. Ozark Heavens 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 –
Actual power conditions since the chatted about within area are very different from minimum lifting weights conditions which happen to be discussed in § 625, BFOQ. The fresh new actual electricity standards talked about right here involve times when proportional, lowest height/weight conditions are thought a predictor otherwise measure of physical energy, instead of the capacity to elevator a certain particular minimum lbs.
As opposed to proportional, minimal, height/weight standards or size once the a basis to own tests candidates, employers as well as will get make an effort to trust individuals physical feature otherwise agility evaluating. Brand new imposition of such examination can result in brand new different of a disproportionate amount of women and also to a lowered the total amount other protected groups considering intercourse, national provider, or battle.
(b) Actual Fuel and you can Dimensions 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.”
Analogy (1) – Jail 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 escort live. 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.