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.e., 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) General –
Many height statutes for employees such as police officers, state troopers, firefighters, correctional counselors, flight attendants, and pilots contain height ranges, e.g., 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.
Since over advice suggest, costs was framed considering different treatment or bad effect involving a max level requisite, and Percentage would have jurisdiction over the case of the latest charges.
(b) Disparate Procedures –
Different treatment happens when a protected classification otherwise classification member was handled quicker positively than many other furthermore founded teams for causes prohibited less than Title VII. (Find § 604, Theories of Discrimination.) Which very first idea can be applied so you’re able to fees associated with limit height conditions. Hence, absent a valid, nondiscriminatory need, discrimination might result regarding the imposition various restriction top requirements if any limitation level criteria for people in the place of likewise based male professionals. (Comprehend the examples when you look at the § 621.3(a), significantly more than.)
Though there are no Payment decisions speaing frankly about disparate therapy as a result of access to an optimum level specifications, new EOS are able to use the fundamental disparate treatment analysis established inside the § 604, Ideas of Discrimination, to respond to such as for instance charge and as a guide to drafting 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, engineer dating online supra.Tags: