Limitation top requirements do, without a doubt, preclude this new hiring of people along side specified limit level

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, we.elizabeth., 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, e.grams., 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 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.

As the above examples suggest, charges will be framed centered on disparate treatment or adverse feeling associated with an optimum peak requisite, and the Payment will have jurisdiction along side case of brand new costs.

(b) Different Cures -

Different cures occurs when a secure category otherwise class representative are managed smaller definitely than many other likewise dependent teams to possess grounds blocked less than Label VII. (Find § 604, Concepts regarding Discrimination.) It first concept is applicable so you can costs of limitation level criteria. Hence, missing a legitimate, nondiscriminatory need, discrimination can result in the imposition various restrict level standards if any restrict peak standards for females in the place of likewise established men personnel. (Comprehend the advice when you look at the § 621.3(a), more than.)

Although there are no Payment choices speaking about different treatment resulting from usage of a maximum peak requirement, this new EOS may use might disparate treatment research set forth inside § 604, Concepts off Discrimination, to answer including charge so that as a guide to creating the fresh 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.