In Blake v. City 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, i.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, elizabeth.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.
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 free hookup sites for singles 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.
Just like the over advice highly recommend, fees is framed centered on disparate therapy or adverse effect related to an optimum level requisite, plus the Fee will have legislation over the matter of the costs.
(b) Disparate Treatment –
Different therapy occurs when a safe group otherwise class user is handled less definitely than other similarly depending group to own factors blocked not as much as Name VII. (Discover § 604, Ideas from Discrimination.) It earliest principle can be applied so you can fees associated with maximum height requirements. Thus, absent a valid, nondiscriminatory need, discrimination can result regarding the imposition of different restriction top requirements or no restriction height standards for girls unlike similarly centered male employees. (Comprehend the advice for the § 621.3(a), over.)
Though there are no Percentage conclusion talking about disparate treatment due to accessibility an optimum height requirements, brand new EOS can use the essential different medication analysis set forth inside § 604, Ideas away from Discrimination, to respond to particularly charges so when the basics of writing 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.