(f) Legal 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, 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. into 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. In the world v. Joined Air Outlines, 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 committee advice 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. East Air Traces 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 ferzu Desktop least where different charts are used potentially rendering compliance by females more difficult and a health hazard, reference should be made to Organization from Airline 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 –

Actual fuel conditions as discussed inside section are different regarding minimum strength training requirements which happen to be chatted about inside the § 625, BFOQ. Brand new real strength requirements talked about here include times when proportional, minimum level/lbs requirements are believed a beneficial predictor otherwise measure of actual stamina, instead of the capacity to lift a specific particular minimum pounds.

In lieu of proportional, minimum, height/weight standards otherwise proportions just like the a grounds having screening candidates, employers along with can get try to trust some real ability or agility screening. The new imposition of such evaluation can result in this new exception to this rule out of an excellent disproportionate amount of girls also to a lesser the amount most other secure groups according to intercourse, federal resource, or competition.

(b) Bodily Power 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.”

Example (1) – Prison 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.