(2) Determine the Title VII basis, age.g., race, color, sex, national origin or religion, of the complaint, and the issues or allegations as they relate to a protected Title VII status.
(2) A report on the new employer’s team demonstrating safe Name VII status since it means access to top and you can lbs conditions;
(3) A statement off causes or justifications to have, or protections to, usage of peak and you will lbs criteria while they connect with actual occupations duties did;
(4) A determination of what the justification is based on, we.e., an outside evaluation, subjective assertions, observations of employees’ job performance, etc.; and
(c) National analytics to your height and you will lbs extracted from the united states Service regarding Health and Welfare: National Center getting Wellness Analytics are connected. The data are in literature entitled, Get better Data out-of Crucial Wellness Analytics, No. 3 (November 19, 1976), and no. fourteen (November 31, 1977). (Pick Appendix We.)
621.8 Cross References
* Get a hold of as an example the guidance part of the important fitness analytics within the Appendix I which shows differences in national top and you will lbs averages centered on sex, years, and you will race.
As a result, but during the uncommon instances, asking activities attempting to difficulties level and weight standards don’t need certainly to reveal a detrimental impact on their safe category otherwise classification of the use of real candidate disperse or choices analysis. That is, they do not have to show you to within the a certain jobs, during the a specific area, a specific employer’s details reveal that they disproportionately excludes them since the away from minimum level or lbs standards.
The Court found that this showing of adverse impact based on national statistics was adequate to enable her to establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination. The employer failed to meet this burden. The employer’s contention that the requirements bore a relationship to strength were found to be inadequate absent evidence showing a correlation between height and weight requirements and strength. The Court went on to suggest that, if the employer wanted to measure strength, it should adopt and validate a test that measures strength directly. (This problem is discussed further in § 621.6, below.)
Analogy (2) – R, police department, had a minimum height requirement for females but not for males because it did not believe females, as opposed to males, under 5’8″ could safely and efficiently perform all the duties of a police officer. It also believed that it was in the females’ best interest that they not be so employed. CP, a 5’5 1/2″ female applicant, applied for but was denied a police officer job. R alleges that its concern for the well-being and safety of females mandated the rejection. R indicated that it felt males of any height could perform the job but that shorter females would not get the respect necessary to enable them to safely perform the job.
Analogy (2) – R, city bus company, had a 5’7″ minimum height requirement for its drivers. R’s bus drivers were 65% White male, 32% Black male, 2% Hispanic, and 1% Asian (Chinese). There were no female bus drivers in R’s employ even though females constituted the largest percentage of potential employees in the SMSA from which R recruited. Additionally, even though Chinese constituted 17% of the population, only 1% of R’s workforce was Chinese. CPs, female and Chinese applicants rejected because they were under the minimum height, filed a charge against R alleging sex and national origin discrimination. Conceding that the CPs had established a prima facie case, R defended on the ground that meeting the minimum height was a business necessity. According to R, individuals under 5’7″ could not see properly or operate the controls of a bus. By way of rebuttal, CPs argued that R could cure that problem by installing adjustable seats on some vehicles and to a lesser extent, adjustable steering wheels. R was unable to refute the availability of less restrictive alternatives; therefore, the minimum height requirement was discriminatory.
For a discussion of Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321, 14 EPD ¶ 7632 (1977), the EOS should refer to § 621.1(b)(2)(iv).
The court in Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 366 F.Supp. 763, 6 EPD ¶ 8930 (D.C. D.C. 1973) (other issues, but not this issue, were appealed), when faced with a maximum height requirement, concluded that different maximum height requirements for males and females violates the Act. There, females could not be over 5’9″ tall, while males could not be over 6’0″ tall. Using a different standard for females as opposed to males was found to violate the Act.
In Dothard v. Rawlinson, supra and Meadows v. Ford Engine Co., 62 FRD 98, 5 EPD ¶ 8468 (D.C. Ky. 1973), the respondent was unable to show the existence of a valid relationship between its minimum weight requirement and the strength necessary to perform the job 
in order to prove a business necessity defense.
Example (2) – Weight as the Immutable Trait – R, an airline, has a policy under which flight attendant applicants are required to meet proportional height/weight requirements based on national charts. CP, a Black female applicant who was not hired for a vacant flight attendant position, filed a charge alleging adverse impact based on race. According to CP, Black females, because of a trait peculiar to their race and not subject to their personal control, weigh proportionately more as a class than White females. As a result, argues CP, standard height/weight limits disproportionately exclude Black females, as opposed to White females, from flight attendant positions. Investigation revealed that although only two out of 237 female flight attendants employed by R are Black, there is no statistical or other evidence indicating that Black females as a class weigh more than White females. (The issue of whether adverse impact exists in this situation is non-CDP; therefore, the Office of Legal Counsel, Guidance Division should be contacted when it arises.)
After that, the brand new Courtroom figured the responsibility and that shifted for the respondent would be to reveal that the requirements constituted a business needs that have a manifest relationship to use in question
Only when it can be determined as a matter of law that it is a question of weight as a mutable characteristic as in the Cox, supra type situation presented in Examples 1 and 3 above should further processing cease; otherwise as in Examples 2 and 4 above processing should continue.
Inside Commission Decision No. 80-5 (unpublished), the newest Commission learned that there was diminished analytical data available to summarize you to definitely Black ladies, in contrast to Light people whose pounds is distributed in different ways, is actually disproportionately excluded away from hostess ranks because of their real dimensions. In this case, a black colored women try denied once the she surpassed the maximum allowable stylish proportions regarding the girl level and you will lbs.
(1) Safe reveal declaration delineating exactly what particular level and you may lbs conditions are now being utilized and exactly how they are used. Such, even though there was the absolute minimum level/pounds requirements, was candidates actually are rejected on such basis as actual electricity.