(f) Court Times

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 Sky Contours, 14 EPD ¶ 7600 (S.D. Fla. 1976), aff’d, 14 EPD ¶ 7601 (5th Cir. 1976). (See also EEOC v. Delta Air Outlines, Inc., ___ F. Supp. ___, 24 EPD ¶ 31,455 (S.D. Tex. 1980), dec. to your rem’d away 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 world v. Joined Air Contours, 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 simply committee opinion during 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 Sky Traces Inc., 430 F. Supp. 884, 17 EPD ¶ 8462 (E.D. Va. 1977), aff’d for each and 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 Relationship off Flight Attendants v. Ozark Air Contours, 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) Standard –

Real strength standards as talked about in this area are very different away from minimum strength training standards that are talked about into the § 625, BFOQ. The newest real stamina criteria chatted about here cover situations where proportional, minimum peak/weight standards are believed an excellent predictor or way of measuring actual strength, as opposed to the ability to lift a certain specific lowest pounds.

In place of proportional, minimum, height/weight conditions otherwise dimensions while the a factor to own assessment individuals, companies together with may make an effort to rely on various physical feature or speed tests. The brand new imposition of such assessment can result in the new different regarding a good disproportionate amount of girls and to a lower life expectancy the quantity most other safe organizations centered on sex, federal resource, or battle.

(b) Bodily Power and you can 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.”

Example (1) – Jail https://datingmentor.org/bbw-dating/ 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.