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, i.e., 87% of all women, as compared to 20% of babylon escort El Cajon 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.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.
Because the over instances recommend, charges might possibly be framed centered on different therapy or unfavorable impact connected with an optimum top specifications, and the Commission would have jurisdiction across the question of the fresh new charge.
(b) Different Therapy –
Different procedures is when a secure class otherwise group affiliate is actually addressed shorter positively than other furthermore mainly based employees for grounds blocked below Identity VII. (Pick § 604, Ideas away from Discrimination.) So it very first principle is applicable in order to charges associated with restrict top conditions. Therefore, absent a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason, discrimination might result on imposition various limit top conditions if any maximum top criteria to possess girls instead of also based male personnel. (Understand the advice into the § 621.3(a), above.)
However, there are not any Commission behavior speaking about different procedures due to usage of a max level requirement, the brand new EOS can use the fundamental different medication data established in the § 604, Ideas off Discrimination, to respond to such costs so that as a guide to writing the 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.