(d) Different Restrict Lbs, Same Height and you may Practical Charts –

(d) Different Restrict Lbs, Same Height and you may Practical Charts –

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 limit lbs equal in porportion to help biggercity vom you top conditions for men and you will ladies of your same level. Instead of minimum top criteria in which means other requirements is known to effect a result of discrimination (get a hold of § 621.2 above), particular process of law (select times quoted below) are finding that means various other restriction pounds requirements for males and people of the same top will not produce prohibited discrimination. Indeed, the charts that are practical, and which can be used to ascertain top/pounds in proportion so you’re able to system size contain more permissible limits for anyone when you look at the recognition of the psychological differences when considering the fresh new a couple organizations. A 5’7″ guy regarding average prominence do for this reason be allowed to weighing proportionally over a 5’7″ woman out-of typical stature on the same top/pounds graph. The difference for the lbs in proportion in order to peak out of good 5’7″ woman out of high stature create however end up being less.

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 dilemma need will always be non-CDP. Any office off Legal advice, Suggestions Division is always to hence getting called to possess assistance when charges based about material occur.

(e) Percentage Decisions

Into the Percentage Decision No. 70-140, CCH EEOC Decisions (1973) ¶ 6067, and this alleged disparate therapy, reliance on an insurance policy up against hiring heavy individuals try located to help you become an excellent pretext for racial discrimination while the merely Black individuals was basically declined if you are obese.

CP, a lady stewardess who had been disciplined for being heavy, filed a fee alleging one to she was being discriminated up against just like the regarding their intercourse in that men weren’t subject to new coverage

For the Payment Decision No. 76-47, CCH Employment Means Publication ¶ 6635, where bad impact try alleged, the newest Payment figured absent proof that Blacks as a course, according to a basic level/weight chart, proportionally consider over other people there is no basis for concluding that the respondent’s inability to engage Black persons exactly who exceed maximum weight limitation constitutes competition discrimination.

For the Commission Choice No. 76-forty five, CCH A position Practices Publication ¶ 6634, in which negative feeling was also so-called, brand new Payment learned that missing statistical research you to definitely Hispanics as the a beneficial group weigh proportionally more persons out-of other national sources, Name VII isn’t broken because of the an effective respondent’s failure to hire Hispanics which exceed the most weight limit.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.