621.six Actual Electricity and you may Feature or Speed

(f) Judge 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 Sky Outlines, Inc., ___ F. Supp. ___, 24 EPD ¶ 31,455 (S.D. Tex. 1980), dec. on 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. International v. United Heavens Traces, Inc., 408 F. Supp. 1107, 21 EPD ¶ 30,419 (E.D. N.Y. 1979).

Gerdom v. Continental Heavens Contours Inc., 692 F.2d 602, 30 EPD ¶ 33,156 (9th Cir. 1982), vacating to some extent committee thoughts from 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 Sky Outlines Inc., 430 F. Supp. 884, dating app for European 17 EPD ¶ 8462 (E.D. Va. 1977), aff’d per 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 Connection away from Airline 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 –

Physical stamina standards just like the discussed within point vary of minimum weight lifting conditions which can be chatted about during the § 625, BFOQ. The new real strength conditions discussed right here cover times when proportional, minimum top/lbs criteria are thought a predictor otherwise way of measuring real strength, as opposed to the capacity to lift a particular particular minimum lbs.

As opposed to proportional, minimum, height/weight conditions or proportions due to the fact a foundation for assessment candidates, employers including can get just be sure to rely on individuals bodily function otherwise agility examination. The fresh imposition of these screening can lead to the fresh exception to this rule away from a beneficial disproportionate number of females also to a lowered the total amount other safe groups predicated on intercourse, federal provider, or battle.

(b) Physical Strength and you will Dimensions Conditions –

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) – Prison 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.