Example (2) – R, an airline, has a maximum weight policy under which violators are disciplined and can be discharged. The weight policy applies only to passenger service representatives and stewardesses who are all female. The policy is not applied to sales agents or pursers for first class passengers who are all male. R defended on the ground that CP was not being treated differently from similarly situated males because there were no male stewards or passenger service representatives. Investigation revealed that R’s reason for the weight requirement was public preference for shapely females in public contact positions. Even though the job categories are different in this case, since the jobs are public contact jobs and R is concerned with public preference in such jobs, the males and females are similarly situated. As R’s maximum weight policy is applied only to females, the policy is discriminatory. (Where other than public contact positions are involved, the issue is non-CDP, and the Office of Legal Counsel, Guidance Division should be contacted.)
A tougher problem requires the imposition of various restriction weight in proportion in order to height requirements for males and ladies of your own same peak. Unlike minimum level requirements where function various other standards is known to bring about discrimination (discover § 621.dos over), certain courts (select circumstances quoted lower than) are finding one form other restrict lbs criteria for males and you can women of the same peak cannot cause blocked discrimination. Indeed, the very maps being practical, and you will being relied on to ascertain peak/pounds in proportion to help you body size consist of other permissible restrictions to possess men into the detection of your mental differences between the a few organizations. A 5’7″ guy regarding typical prominence create thus be permitted to weigh proportionally more a great 5’7″ girl of typical prominence for a passing fancy peak/lbs chart. The real difference when you look at the pounds equal in porportion to help you peak away from a great 5’7″ girl out of higher prominence do without a doubt become faster.
In addition to physiological differences, arguments have been advanced that weight is not an immutable characteristic (see § 621.5(a)) and that policies based on personal appearance (see § 619, Grooming Standards) do not result in prohibited sex discrimination. (See Jarrell and Gerdom which are cited below.) Therefore, these courts have concluded that, as long as the different height/weight standards are not unreasonable in terms of medical considerations and ability to comply, are consistent with accepted medical notions of good health, and exemptions are available for those medically unable to comply, the use of different standards does not result in prohibited discrimination.
This issue must are non-CDP. The office off Legal counsel, Recommendations Section should thus become contacted getting assistance when costs founded about question happen.
(e) Payment Choices
When you look at the Percentage Decision Zero. 70-140, CCH EEOC Behavior (1973) ¶ 6067, hence so-called disparate cures, reliance upon an insurance plan against hiring over weight people are found to help you become good pretext to own racial discrimination once the only Black individuals was basically denied for being fat.
CP, a woman stewardess who was controlled for being overweight, recorded a fee alleging that she had been discriminated facing given that from the woman gender in this guys just weren’t subject to the latest coverage
During the Percentage Choice Zero. 76-47, CCH Employment Means Guide ¶ 6635, in which negative impact is actually alleged, the Fee determined that missing proof one Blacks because the a course, based on a standard height/pounds chart, proportionally consider over other persons there is absolutely no cause for concluding that respondent’s failure to employ Black colored persons just who meet or exceed the maximum lbs maximum comprises race discrimination.
Within the Payment Decision No. 76-45, CCH A position Methods Book ¶ 6634, where adverse impact has also been so-called, new Fee unearthed that missing mathematical facts one to Hispanics given that an effective class weigh proportionally more persons of feeld logowanie almost every other national sources, Title VII isn’t violated of the a beneficial respondent’s incapacity to hire Hispanics exactly who go beyond the maximum weight restriction.