In Blake v. Town of La, 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) General –

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″. 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.

Example (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.

Example (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.

While the a lot more than examples recommend, costs could be presented centered on disparate treatment otherwise adverse perception involving a maximum peak criteria, plus the Percentage would have legislation over the case of the newest fees.

(b) Different Cures –

Different cures is when a safe class otherwise classification affiliate are treated smaller positively than other furthermore established professionals getting causes prohibited around Term VII. (Look for § 604, Theories off Discrimination.) Which very first idea applies to help you fees associated with limit top conditions. Ergo, missing a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason, discrimination can result throughout the imposition of different limitation peak requirements if any limit peak criteria for female unlike also oriented men personnel. (Comprehend the advice for the § 621.3(a), more than.)

However, there are no Percentage decisions speaking about disparate treatment due to usage of a maximum top requirement, this new EOS may use the essential different treatment study established inside the § 604, Ideas from Discrimination, to resolve such as for instance charges so when a guide to writing the 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.