national origin, or establish that the height requirement constitutes a business necessity. Prohibited disparate treatment can also occur where maximum weight limitations are imposed on females in exclusively female job categories such as flight attendants but not on male employees such as directors of passenger service who perform exception. requirements have been set for females as opposed to males. Example (1) - R, a police department, formerly screened job applicants by strict adherence to proportional minimum height/weight requirements under the assumption that tall, well-built officers were physically stronger and Additionally, even though Chinese constituted 17% of the population, only 1% of R's workforce was Chinese. (i) Get a list of their names and an indication of how they are affected. The U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) combine the above and add a height/weight requirement. In order to establish a prima facie case of adverse impact regarding use of maximum weight requirements, a protected group or class member would have to show disproportionate exclusion of his/her protected group or class because of Example - R had a hiring policy that precluded hiring overweight persons as receptionists. I have been informed that, at present, the firefighters council requires all applicants for employment as firefighters to be at least 5'6" in height, with weight proportionate to height. Here are the requirements to become a commissioned Officer: Age: At least 17, but under 31 in the year of commissioning as an Officer. In Commission Decision No. females and 88% of Hispanics were excluded. No such restrictions were placed on the hiring of other personnel such as file clerks, secretaries, or professionals. Dothard Court emphasized that respondents cannot rely on unfounded, generalized assertions about strength to establish a business necessity defense for use of minimum weight requirements. Law enforcement officers perform physically demanding tasks that generally remain constant as they age. (See 604, Theories of Discrimination.) proportion to height based on national height/weight charts. height requirement a business necessity. Decided cases and decisions have dealt with both disparate treatment and adverse impact analyses, and 1132, 19 EPD 9267 (N.D. Ill. 1979). Example (2) - R, city bus company, had a 5'7" minimum height requirement for its drivers. Investigation revealed nonuniform application of the tests. (2) Adverse Impact Analysis - This approach is applicable where on its face a minimum height or weight requirement constitutes a neutral employment policy or practice that may be applied equally to 72-0284, CCH EEOC Decision (1973) 6304, the Commission found a minimum height requirement for flight pursers discriminatory on the basis of sex and national origin since its disproportionate exclusion of those Height: 5'10" and over Weight: 135 to 230 pounds Female Air Force pilots must be 5'10" or taller AND weigh between 135 and 230 pounds. to the respondent was to show that the requirements constituted a business necessity with a manifest relationship to the employment in question. Title VII was intended to remove or eliminate. For decades, the LAPD demanded that its officers measure up to 5 feet, 8 inches. The respondent's contention that the minimum requirements bore a relationship to strength was rejected outright since no supportive evidence was produced. necessity without which the business could not safely and efficiently be performed. 76-45, CCH Employment Practices The employer must use the least restrictive alternative. (3) Determine what evidence is available to support the charge. above), charges based on exceeding the maximum allowable weight in proportion to one's height and body size would be extremely difficult to settle. It is nonetheless conceivable that charges could be brought challenging a maximum height requirement as discriminatory. discrimination because weight in the sense of being over or under weight is neither an immutable characteristic nor a constitutionally protected category. The imposition of such tests may result in the exclusion 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. A healthy and fit lifestyle is an essential element of being a police officer. likely be disproportionately excluded as compared to their actual numbers in the population. height requirement was necessary for the safe and efficient operation of its business. Investigation revealed that of 237 flight attendants 57 are males and 180 strength necessary to successfully perform the job. CP, a female flight attendant who was suspended for 15 days for being three pounds overweight, filed a charge alleging disparate (i) Use of National Statistics - In dealing with height and weight requirements it may not in many cases be appropriate to rely upon an actual applicant flow analysis to determine if women possible that reliance on the charts could result in disproportionate exclusion of Black females, the EOS should continue to investigate this type of charge for adverse impact. Gerdom v. Continental Air Lines Inc., 692 F.2d 602, 30 EPD 33,156 (9th Cir. (See 619, Grooming Standards, for a detailed discussion of long hair cases.). The EOS would therefore have to determine whether there are statistics showing disproportionate exclusion of the charging party's group as a result of a neutral rule or policy. Employees or applicants of employers that receive federal grants should contact the granting agency. groups was not justified as a business necessity or validated in accordance with Commission guidelines. Additionally, the respondent failed to establish a business necessity concerned with public preference in such jobs, the males and females are similarly situated. The Physical Ability Test consists of three subtests; sit-ups, push-ups and the 1.5 mile run. 7601 (5th Cir. Education: A college graduate by the time you're . could better observe field situations. geographical region that is not as tall as other Native Americans, it would not be appropriate to use national statistics on Native Americans in the analysis. Most airlines require that its flight attendants not exceed a Therefore, absent a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason, discrimination can result from the imposition of different maximum height standards or no maximum height In Commission Decision No. 1607. Employment preference is given to Florida Certified Law Enforcement Officers with one year of sworn law enforcement . However, some departments set a minimum age requirement of 20, with the condition that the candidate must be 21 when they were sworn in. Physical strength requirements as discussed in this section are different from minimum weight lifting requirements which are discussed in 625, BFOQ. Disparate treatment occurs when a protected group or class member is treated less favorably than other similarly situated employees for reasons prohibited under Title VII. non-CDP; therefore, the Office of Legal Counsel, Guidance Division should be contacted.). the requirement. Example - R required that its employees weigh at least 140 lbs. In Commission Decision No. Thereafter, to ultimately prevail, the charging party would have to show the availability of less restrictive alternatives. 80-5 (unpublished), the Commission found that there was not enough statistical data available to conclude that Black females, in contrast to White females whose weight is distributed differently, are disproportionately Members of the 155th trooper training class salute during . c. diminished community resistance. national statistics indicate that females on average are not as tall and do not weigh as much as males. Unlike minimum height requirements where setting different standards has been found to 1131 (N.D. Ohio 1973), a civil rights action was brought by a group of women who alleged that they were denied the opportunity to apply for employment as East Cleveland police officers because they did not meet the 5'8" height requirement and the 150-pound weight requirement imposed by the police department. Lift and drag a 165-pound mannequin 40 feet 4. Non-Pilot Height And Weight Requirements Gender: Male Nationality: US citizen Height: 5'8 or taller Weight: 130 to 240 pounds Therefore, R is discriminating by nonuniform application of its minimum height policy. weight requirement. subject to the employees' personal control. The height and weight statistical studies in Appendix I, for example, only show differences based on sex, age, and race. In Dothard v. Rawlinson, supra and Meadows v. Ford Motor 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 for a police cadet position. women passed the wall requirement, and none passed the sandbag requirement. Title VII, 29 CFR Part 1604, 29 CFR Part 1605, Employers, Employees, Applicants, Attorneys and Practitioners, EEOC Staff, Commissioner Charges and Directed Investigations, Office of Civil Rights, Diversity and Inclusion, Management Directives & Federal Sector Guidance, Federal Sector Alternative Dispute Resolution, Advance Data from Vital Health Statistics, No. 1979). requirements. The result is that females are disproportionately discharged for being overweight. In Commission Decision No. 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. There, females could not be over 5'9" tall, while males could not be over 6'0" tall. Except for a fact situation like the one suggested in 621.3(a) above, it is unlikely that a charging party will be able to establish that his protected group or class is on average taller than other groups or classes and The Court in Dothard (cited below and discussed in 621.1(b)(2)(iv)) stated that since otherwise qualified individuals might be discouraged from applying because of their 71-1418, CCH EEOC Decisions (1973) 6223, the Commission found, based on national statistics, that a minimum 5'5" height requirement disproportionately excluded large numbers of women and Hispanics. 131 M Street, NE the ground that meeting the minimum height was a business necessity. An official website of the United States government. This issue is non-CDP. According to R, individuals under 5'7" could not see properly or operate the controls of a bus. A police department minimum height requirement of 67 inches was found in Dothard v. Rawlinson (cited below) to preclude consideration of more prohibited sex discrimination. and over possessed the physical 1980), and Vanguard Justice Society Inc. v. Hughes, 471 F. Supp. (iii) Bottom Line - Under the bottom line concept which can be found in 4(C) of the UGESP, where height and weight requirements are a component of the selection procedure, even if considering all the components together there is no (See generally Jefferies v. Harris County Community Action Association, 615 F.2d 1025, 22 EPD 30,858 (5th Cir. In that case the plaintiff, a flight attendant suspended from active duty because she exceeded the maximum allowable weight limit for her height, contended that she was being discriminated against because 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 (i) If there are documents get copies. The Office of Legal Counsel, Guidance Division should therefore be contacted for assistance when charges based on this issue arise. Investigation As was suggested above, the respondent cannot rely on the narrow BFOQ exception based on sex or on general unfounded assertions about the relationship of strength to weight to Supp. (4) Determine if other employees or applicants are affected by the use of height and weight requirements. According to CP, similarly situated White candidates for pilot trainee positions were accepted, even though they exceeded the maximum height. CP, a Black Run through a 600-foot zigzag pattern 2. The minimum age for these requirements is 17. 333, 16 EPD 8247 (S.D. (5) Written detailed job descriptions for contested positions, and where appropriate statements showing actual duties performed. Otherwise stated, she should not have been suspended because, proportionally, more women than men are overweight. The direct and obvious effect of minimum height or weight requirements is, as stated in 621.1(a) above, to disproportionately exclude significant numbers of women, Hispanics, and certain Asians from Minimum height requirements can also result in disparate treatment of protected group or class members if the minimum requirements are not uniformly applied, e.g., where the employer applies a minimum 5'8" height requirement strictly to (Whether or not adverse impact can be found in this situation is similarly situated 5'7" female or Hispanic would not be excluded. The contents of this document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. The result is that, if meeting a minimum height or weight limit is a requirement for employment, these protected group members will most CP, a female stewardess who was disciplined for being overweight, filed a charge alleging that she was being discriminated against The requirement therefore was found to be discriminatory on the basis of sex. The Commission also Commission Decision No. to support its contention. requirement. ), In Example 1 above, weight, in the sense of females as a class being more frequently overweight than males, is a mutable characteristic. generally concluded that mutable characteristics not peculiar to any protected group or class are not entitled to protection under Title VII. These jobs include police officers, state troopers, flight attendants, lifeguards, firefighters, correctional officers, and even production workers and lab (See Commission Decision No. R had no Black pilots, and no Blacks were accepted as pilot trainees. presented to the Commission by Black and Hispanic women both groups were unable to meet the first requirement of proving statistically that, on average, their groups weighed more. In terms of an adverse impact analysis, the Court in Dothard v. Rawlinson looked at national statistics showing that the minimum 120-pound weight requirement would exclude 22.29% of females, as compared to only 2.35% of males. She alleged in her class action suit that the minimum requirements Title VII status. (c) National statistics on height and weight obtained from the United States Department of Health and Welfare: National Center for Health Statistics are attached. were rejected for being overweight. According to the Supreme Court, this constitutes the sort of artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barrier to employment that of right to sue issued to protect the charging party's appeal rights. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. sandbag up a flight of stairs and scale a 14-foot log wall. statistically more females than males exceed the permissible maximum weight limit. 1976), "under no set of facts can plaintiff recover on the legal theory she urgesbecause weight is neither an immutable characteristic nor a employers, the actual applicant pool may not accurately reflect the qualified applicant pool. Therefore, these courts have concluded that, as long as the different height/weight standards are not unreasonable in terms of medical considerations (since Asian women are presumably not as tall as American women) may not be applicable. 884, 17 EPD 8462 (E.D. 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 subject to one's personal control. R's employ even though females constituted the largest percentage of potential employees in the SMSA from which R recruited. Please type your question or comment here and then click Submit. Other courts have concluded that imposing different maximum weight requirements for men and women of the same height to take into account the physiological differences between the two groups does not violate Title VII. There may occasionally be instances where it is not appropriate to use national statistics as the basis for the analysis. for males, was discriminatory. 79-19, supra. In the 1977 Dothard v. Rawlinson case, the plaintiffs showed that the height and weight requirements excluded more than 40 percent of women and less than 10 percent of men. Such charges might have the following form. Example (1) - R, an airline, has an established maximum weight policy under which employees can be disciplined and even discharged for failing to maintain their weight in proper proportion to their height, based on a 1-844-234-5122 (ASL Video Phone) Black females as a class weigh more than White females, such data was simply not available. (ii) Four-Fifths Rule - It may not be appropriate in many instances to use the 4/5ths or 80% rule, which is a general rule of thumb or guide for determining whether there is evidence of adverse justification for its actions, the employee has the opportunity to show that the employer's reason is merely a pretext for discrimination. For instance, if the charging party is from a particular Indian tribe located almost exclusively in a particular CP, a 6'7" male, applied but was rejected for a police officer position because he is over the maximum height. height, did not constitute an adequate business necessity defense. 54 Many height statutes for employees such as police officers, state troopers, firefighters, correctional counselors, flight attendants, and pilots contain height ranges, e.g., 5'6" to 6'5". That is, they do not have to prove that in a particular job, in a particular locale, a particular employer's records show that it disproportionately excludes them because of minimum height or weight requirements. b. the media's portrayal of law enforcement officers. Additionally, the Black female was unable to show that statistically Example (1) - R had an announced policy of hiring only individuals 5'8" or over for its assembly line positions. Investigation revealed evidence supporting CP's contention and that R had no Chinese constitutionally protected category." (BMI calculator says you are underweight). This was adequate to meet the charging parties' burden of establishing a prima facie case. were hired. R was unable to offer any evidence suggested that, even if the quality was found to be job related, a validated test which directly measures strength could be devised and adopted. The following table of height and weight is to be adhered to in all instances except where a particularly unusual situation is found and is documented by a special report of the examining physician. of a disproportionate number of women and to a lesser extent other protected groups based on sex, national origin, or race. CP, a 6'6" Black candidate for a pilot trainee position, alleges that he was rejected, not because he exceeded the maximum height, but Although, as was suggested in 621.2 above, many Commission decisions and court cases involve minimum height requirements, few deal with maximum height very charts which are standard, and which are relied on to establish height/weight in proportion to body size contain different permissible limits for men and women in recognition of the physiological differences between the two groups. are in the minority. (See the processing instructions in 621.5(a).). national origins, Title VII is not violated by a respondent's failure to hire Hispanics who exceed the maximum weight limit. The minimum age requirement for a police officer is between 18-21 years of age. 670, 20 EPD 30,077 (D.C. Md. 70-140, CCH EEOC Decisions (1973) 6067, where The Office of Legal Counsel, Guidance Division should be contacted when it arises. 76-83, CCH Employment (See 621.1(b)(2)(i) above and 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 that as a result, a maximum height requirement disproportionately excludes them from employment. opposed to males. Relying on national statistics, the Court reasoned that over forty (40) percent of the female population, as compared with only one percent of the male population, standards for female as opposed to similarly situated male employees. was not overweight, there was no other evidence R discriminated based on a person's protected Title VII status, and all the receptionists met R's maximum weight requirements. Additionally, as height, as well as weight, problems in the extreme may potentially constitute a handicap, the EOS should be aware of the need to make charging parties or potential charging parties aware of their right to proceed under other And, the Court in Dothard accordingly suggested that "[i]f the job-related quality that the [respondents] identify is bona fide, their purpose Secure .gov websites use HTTPS Solicit specific examples to buttress the general allegations. well-being and safety of females mandated the rejection. establish a business necessity defense. 378, 11 EPD 10,618 (N.D. Cal. 1978). The Florida Highway Patrol requires all job applicants to be at least 5'81/2!mfe!x" tall and to weigh 160 pounds. The employer's contention that the requirements R's police force was 98% White male, and 2% Black male. CP, a Hispanic who failed the tests, alleges national origin discrimination in that Anglos are permitted to pass despite how they actually perform on the test. than their shorter, lighter counterparts. (ii) If there are witnesses get their statements. adjustable seats on some vehicles and to a lesser extent, adjustable steering wheels. International v. United Air Lines, Inc., 408 F. Supp. Example (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 (iv) Dothard v. Rawlinson - In Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321, 14 EPD 7632 (1977), the Supreme Court was faced with a challenge by a rejected female applicant for a Correctional The example which follows illustrates discriminatory use of a minimum weight standard. 1980) (where a charge of Fla. 1976), aff'd, 14 EPD 7601 (5th Cir. 58. This means that, except in rare instances, charging parties attempting to challenge height and weight requirements do not have to show an adverse impact on their protected group or class by use of actual applicant flow or selection data. requirement, where there was no neutral height policy, and no one had ever been rejected based on height. Air Line Pilots Ass'n. The maximum score per event is 100 points, with a total maximum ACFT score of 600. supra court cases came to different conclusions. Although there are no Commission decisions dealing with disparate treatment in the discriminatory use of a minimum weight requirement, an analogy can be drawn to Commission Decision No. But on Tuesday, a court in . The court in Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 366 F.Supp.
