(f) Court Cases
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, bdsm singles dating 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 Air Traces, 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. into rem’d regarding, ___ 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. Internationally v. United Air Contours, Inc., 408 F. Supp. 1107, 21 EPD ? 30,419 (E.D. N.Y. 1979).
Gerdom v. Continental Air Contours Inc., 692 F.2d 602, 30 EPD ? 33,156 (9th Cir. 1982), vacating in part panel view in 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 Heavens Lines 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 Organization from Journey Attendants v. Ozark Heavens Traces, 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 stamina conditions once the discussed within this point are very different off minimal weight lifting requirements that are talked about inside the § 625, BFOQ. The fresh physical fuel requirements talked about here cover times when proportional, minimal top/weight criteria are believed good predictor or measure of real energy, rather than the ability to lift a certain certain minimum weight.
As opposed to proportional, minimal, height/pounds standards otherwise dimensions since a foundation to own evaluation applicants, businesses and additionally may attempt to believe in individuals physical function or agility testing. The imposition of such examination can lead to the fresh exemption regarding an excellent disproportionate amount of ladies and a lower the total amount other secure organizations based on sex, national resource, or battle.
(b) Physical Strength and you can Size 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 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. 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.