Y. 1978), an authorities department’s applying of various other minimal top conditions for men rather than lady is discovered so you can compensate sex discrimination
In Commission Choice Zero. 79-19, CCH A job Techniques Publication ¶ 6749, a male, 5’6″ significant, confronted the usage minimal, 5’5″ girls and you will 5’9″ men, height requirement and you can so-called that in case he have been a woman the guy have eligible for an authorities cadet updates. The respondent may either introduce an effective uniform peak demands that does n’t have an adverse feeling predicated on race, sex, or national resource, or introduce the peak needs comprises a business necessity.
When you look at the Commission Choice No. 76-31, CCH A position Techniques Guide ¶ 6624, new Payment discover zero evidence of adverse perception up against women having admiration so you’re able to a clean unsupported allegation out-of work assertion centered on intercourse, on account of at least peak specifications, where you will find zero neutral peak plan, without you to had ever before been denied considering top. And additionally, there was no evidence of disparate therapy. The prior incumbent, the brand new selectee, additionally the battery charging party had been every people, there is zero proof you to definitely a shorter male won’t also have become refused.
The court in You.S. v. Lee way System Luggage, Inc., 7 EPD ¶ 9066 (D.C. Ok. 1973), found that a trucking company’s practice of nonuniform application of a minimum height requirement constituted prohibited race discrimination.
(c) Unfavorable Perception –
In early decisions, the Commission found that because of national significance, it was appropriate to use national statistics, as opposed to actual applicant flow data, to establish a prima facie case. The Commission also found that many of the employer proffered justifications for imposing minimum height requirements were not adequate to establish a business necessity defensemission Decision No. 71-1529, CCH EEOC Decisions (1973) ¶ 6231; Commission Decision No. 71-2643, CCH EEOC Decisions (1973) ¶ 6286; and Commission Decision No. 71-1418, CCH EEOC Decisions (1973) ¶ 6223. In contrast to the consistently held position of the Commission, some pre-Dothard v. Rawlinson, supra court cases came to different conclusions. Smith v. Troyan, 520 F.2d 492, 10 EPD ¶ 10,263 (6th Cir. 1975); Castro v. Beecher, 459 F.2d 725, 4 EPD ¶ 7783 (1st Cir. 1972). The Supreme Court in Dothard v. Rawlinson, supra, however, agreed with the Commission’s position and used national statistics to find that minimum height and weight requirements were discriminatory and that unsupported assertions about strength were inadequate to constitute a business necessity defense.
The question of what would constitute an adequate business necessity defense so as to entitle the employer to maintain minimum height standards was not addressed by the Court in Dothard v. Rawlinson, supra. On a case-by-case basis, Commission decisions and court cases have determined what things do not constitute an adequate business necessity defense. The EOS should therefore refer to the ples set out in the following section for guidance. Where, however, the business necessity of a minimum height requirement for airline pilots and navigators is at issue, the matter is non-CDP, and the Office of Legal Counsel, Guidance Division should be contacted for assistance.
Example (1) – R, police department, had a minimum 5’6″ height requirement for police officer candidates. R’s police force was 98% White male, and 2% Black male. There were no female or Hispanic officers, even though the SMSA was 53% female and 5% Hispanic. CPs, female and Hispanic rejected job applicants, filed charges alleging that their rejections, based on failure to meet the minimum height requirement, were discriminatory because their protected groups were disproportionately excluded from consideration. To buttress this argument, they introduced statistics showing that on a national basis, while only 3% of Black or White males were excluded by the 5’6″ requirement, 87% of females and 88% of Hispanics were excluded. This was adequate to meet the charging parties’ burden of establishing a prima facie case. In its defense the respondent had its supervisory personnel testify that the minimum height requirement was necessary for the safe and efficient operation of its business. According to respondent, taller officers enjoyed a psychological advantage and thus would less often be attacked, were better able to subdue suspects, and could better observe field situations. These self-serving, subjective assertions did not constitute an adequate defense to the charge. They did not fairly and substantially relate to the performance of the duties of a police officer. Accord Horace v. City of Pontiac, have a glimpse at this weblink 624 F.2d 765, 23 EPD ¶ 31,069 (6th Cir. 1980), and Innovative Justice Neighborhood Inc. v. Hughes, 471 F. Supp. 670, 20 EPD ¶ 30,077 (D.C. Md. 1979).