In Blake v. Town of Los angeles, 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, we.age., 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, age.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 https://datingmentor.org/escort/beaumont 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.
Due to the fact significantly more than advice recommend, costs would be presented centered on different procedures otherwise unfavorable perception related to a maximum level requirements, therefore the Percentage might have jurisdiction along side matter-of the fresh new charges.
(b) Different Medication –
Different therapy is when a safe classification otherwise group associate is actually addressed less absolutely than other furthermore based team for reasons prohibited around Name VII. (Pick § 604, Concepts off Discrimination.) It first principle applies so you’re able to fees of maximum top requirements. Hence, missing a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasoning, discrimination can result on imposition of different limit level requirements if any limitation peak requirements to possess lady unlike similarly founded men staff. (Understand the examples during the § 621.3(a), a lot more than.)
Even though there are not any Percentage choices dealing with disparate treatment as a consequence of accessibility a max top demands, the fresh new EOS are able to use the essential different cures studies established during the § 604, Theories off Discrimination, to resolve particularly fees so when the basics of creating the latest 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.
