In Blake v. City of La, 595 F.2d 1367, 19 EPD ¶ 9251 (9th Cir. 1979), the court looked at Dothard, supra and concluded that the plaintiffs established a prima facie case of sex discrimination by demonstrating that the height requirement resulted in the selection of applicants in a significantly discriminatory pattern, i.elizabeth., 87% of all women, as compared to 20% of all men, were excluded. This was sufficient to establish a prima facie case without a showing of discriminatory intent. The court was not persuaded by respondent’s argument that taller officers have the advantage in subduing suspects and observing field situations, so as to make the height requirement a business necessity.
(a) Standard —
Many height statutes for employees such as police officers, state troopers, firefighters, correctional counselors, flight attendants, and pilots contain height ranges, e.grams., 5’6″ to 6’5″. Although, as was suggested in § 621.2 above, many Commission decisions and court cases involve minimum height requirements, few deal with maximum height requirements. It is nonetheless conceivable that charges could be brought challenging a maximum height requirement as discriminatory. Such charges might have the following form.
Analogy (1) — R, police force, has a maximum height requirement of 6’5″. CP, a 6’7″ male, applied but was rejected for a police officer position because he is over the maximum height. CP alleges that this constitutes discrimination against him because of his sex (male) because of national statistics which show that women are on average shorter than men. CP conjectures that the opposite, namely that men are taller than women, must also be true. Accordingly, men must be disproportionately excluded from employment by a maximum height requirement, in the same manner as women are disproportionately excluded from employment by a minimum height requirement.
Example (2) — R, airlines, has a maximum 6’5″ height requirement for pilots. CP, a 6’6″ Black candidate for a pilot trainee position, alleges that he was rejected, not because he exceeded the maximum height, but because of his race (Black). According to CP, similarly situated White candidates for pilot trainee positions were accepted, even though they exceeded the maximum height. Investigation revealed that R did in fact accept and train Whites who were over 6’5″ and that R employed White pilots who exceeded the maximum height. R had no Black pilots, and no Blacks were accepted as pilot trainees.
As a lot more than instances highly recommend, Dayton escort reviews charges would-be presented predicated on different cures or negative feeling associated with a max peak criteria, additionally the Payment will have legislation along the matter of the brand new charge.
(b) Different Treatment —
Different treatment happens when a protected class otherwise group affiliate try managed shorter definitely than other similarly mainly based personnel to possess factors banned less than Label VII. (Pick § 604, Theories out-of Discrimination.) So it basic principle applies to help you costs related to limit height conditions. Therefore, missing a valid, nondiscriminatory cause, discrimination can result regarding the imposition of various limitation height standards or no limitation level standards having girls in place of furthermore situated men teams. (Understand the advice in § 621.3(a), significantly more than.)
Though there are not any Payment decisions discussing disparate cures through use of an optimum height specifications, the new EOS can use might different therapy analysis established inside § 604, Theories out-of Discrimination, to resolve like fees so when the basics of writing this new LOD.
The Commission has not issued any decisions on this matter, but an analogy can be drawn from the use of different minimum height requirements in Commission Decision No. 79-19, supra.
Comments are closed