Limit top requirements manage, definitely, preclude the latest choosing of men and women along the specified limit level

In Blake v. City of La, 595 F.2d 1367, 19 EPD ¶ jak uЕјywaД‡ feeld 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.

Example (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.

Analogy (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.

Once the significantly more than instances recommend, charges might possibly be presented according to different medication or adverse perception related to a maximum level criteria, additionally the Payment would have jurisdiction along side matter-of brand new charge.

(b) Different Therapy –

Disparate treatment is when a secure class otherwise category affiliate try managed reduced definitely than other similarly built personnel having explanations banned less than Identity VII. (Get a hold of § 604, Concepts out of Discrimination.) This first concept can be applied so you can fees connected with restrict level conditions. Therefore, absent a legitimate, nondiscriminatory cause, discrimination might result in the imposition various restriction top conditions if any limit top conditions to possess females as opposed to furthermore situated men teams. (See the instances when you look at the § 621.3(a), over.)

Though there are no Commission choices referring to disparate cures resulting from usage of an optimum top requirement, the fresh new EOS can use the fundamental disparate cures investigation established from inside the § 604, Concepts of Discrimination, to respond to particularly charge and as the basics of creating the fresh 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.