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) Standard –
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.
Example (1) – R, police force, has a maximum height requirement of 6’5″. CP, a benaughty.com reviews 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.
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.
Given that more than advice strongly recommend, fees would-be presented based on disparate treatment or bad impression associated with a max top needs, in addition to Commission could have jurisdiction along side matter-of the newest costs.
(b) Disparate Medication –
Different therapy occurs when a safe category otherwise group member is actually handled faster favorably than many other furthermore situated group to have explanations blocked not as much as Identity VII. (Find § 604, Ideas away from Discrimination.) So it basic principle can be applied so you’re able to fees related to limitation level requirements. Hence, missing a legitimate, nondiscriminatory cause, discrimination can result regarding the imposition of different limit peak requirements if any limit peak conditions to possess lady in lieu of similarly built male professionals. (See the advice in § 621.3(a), over.)
Although there are not any Commission decisions speaing frankly about different medication as a consequence of entry to an optimum height criteria, this new EOS may use the basic disparate procedures studies set forth when you look at the § 604, Ideas of Discrimination, to answer including fees so that as a guide to creating the fresh 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, supra.