(f) Court 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 Contours, 14 EPD ¶ 7600 (S.D. Fla. 1976), aff’d, 14 EPD ¶ 7601 (5th Cir. 1976). (See also EEOC v. Delta Sky Lines, Inc., ___ F. Supp. ___, 24 EPD ¶ 31,455 (S.D. Tex. 1980), dec. with the 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. All over the world v. United Sky Traces, Inc., 408 F. Supp. 1107, 21 EPD ¶ 30,419 (E.D. N.Y. 1979).
Gerdom v. good tinder opening lines Continental Sky Contours Inc., 692 F.2d 602, 30 EPD ¶ 33,156 (9th Cir. 1982), vacating simply committee viewpoint inside 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. Eastern Air Outlines Inc., 430 F. Supp. 884, 17 EPD ¶ 8462 (E.D. Va. 1977), aff’d each 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 away from Journey 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 –
Bodily strength requirements since discussed within this point vary from lowest strength training conditions which happen to be discussed from inside the § 625, BFOQ. New real power conditions talked about right here cover situations where proportional, minimum top/lbs conditions are believed an excellent predictor otherwise measure of bodily strength, as opposed to the ability to lift a certain certain minimum lbs.
In the place of proportional, lowest, height/pounds standards or size while the a factor getting examination candidates, companies and additionally will get attempt to trust certain bodily ability or speed evaluation. The fresh imposition of these tests can lead to the fresh exception to this rule from a beneficial disproportionate quantity of ladies and to a lower extent most other secure organizations centered on gender, national provider, or race.
(b) Physical Stamina and you may Size 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 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.