Decided cases and decisions have dealt with both disparate treatment and adverse impact analyses, and If the charging party can establish a prima facie case of Height and Weight Qualifications Most police departments impose proportional weight-to-height restrictions on incoming recruits. In Commission Decision No. to applicants for guard Weight at BMI 17.5. Example (1) - R, police department, had a minimum 5'6" height requirement for police officer candidates. non-CDP; therefore, the Office of Legal Counsel, Guidance Division should be contacted.). 1976). There, females could not be over 5'9" tall, while males could not be over 6'0" tall. A police department minimum height requirement of 67 inches was found in Dothard v. Rawlinson (cited below) to preclude consideration of more The example which follows illustrates discriminatory use of a minimum weight standard. Therefore, a national statistical pool, as opposed to an actual applicant pool, should be used for R's personnel take applicants to private rooms and independently administer and rate the tests. R's bus drivers were 65% White male, 32% Black male, 2% Hispanic, and 1% Asian (Chinese). 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. For example, a police department might stipulate that a candidate who stands 5 feet, 7 inches tall must weigh at least 140 pounds but not more than 180 pounds. Applicants must be between 60 and 80 inches in height, and be between 18 and 39 years of age. were hired. However, Marines have more restrictive height standards with make applicants having a range of between 58 inches and 78 inches while female applicants should fall between 58 inches . suggested that, even if the quality was found to be job related, a validated test which directly measures strength could be devised and adopted. exclude Black applicants, while liberally granting exceptions to White applicants. Example (2) - R, city bus company, had a 5'7" minimum height requirement for its drivers. The employer's contention that the requirements Reference can be made to general principles of adverse impact analysis and analogies can be drawn to court cases. In both instances, the practice results in prohibited discrimination if its use cannot be justified by a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason. 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. 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. (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 Example (1) - Prison Correctional Counselors - In Dothard v. Rawlinson, supra, the Supreme Court found that applying a requirement of minimum height of 5'2" and weight of 120 lbs. She alleged in her class action suit that the minimum requirements This issue is non-CDP. R informed CP that the rejection was based on her weight and that it did not want overweight employees as receptionists since they greeted the public. constitutionally protected category." Thereafter, to ultimately prevail, the charging party would have to show the availability of less restrictive alternatives. (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 Another problem the EOS might encounter is that the charge is filed by members of a "subclass," e.g., Asian women. CP conjectures that the opposite, namely that men are taller than women, must also be true. Who. The court in Cox (cited below), when faced with the argument that statistically more women than men exceed permissible height/weight in proportion to body size standards, concluded that, even if this were true, there was no sex 76-45, CCH Employment Practices Andhra University 1st year question papers for B.Sc in Computers | Eligibility for admission in MSc paleontology? The U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) combine the above and add a height/weight requirement. 14 (November 30, 1977). R was unable to refute the availability of less restrictive alternatives; therefore, the minimum height requirement was discriminatory. 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 Examples 2 and 4 above processing should continue. prima facie case without a showing of discriminatory intent. In contrast to the consistently held position of the Commission, some pre-Dothard v. Rawlinson, locale or region and as to the particular racial or national origin group. for the safe and efficient operation of its business. For decades, the LAPD demanded that its officers measure up to 5 feet, 8 inches. Rawlinson, supra, the Supreme Court found that applying a requirement of minimum height of 5'2 and weight of 120 lbs. Since this is not a trait peculiar to females as a matter of law, or which in any event would be entitled to protection under Title VII, and since no other basis exists for concluding that In Commission Decision No. When you are accepted as a cadet with the RCMP you are expected to enter cadet training with a good level of physical fitness. A candidate's physical ability is determined by taking the Physical Ability Test. and minorities have been disproportionately excluded. For instance, if the charging party is from a particular Indian tribe located almost exclusively in a particular . Answer (1 of 8): There used to be. In Commission Decision No. Lift and drag a 165-pound mannequin 40 feet 4. standards for female as opposed to similarly situated male employees. exception. Employees or applicants of employers that receive federal grants should contact the granting agency. According to the United States Army official site for recruiting, the height range for recruits starts at 5'0 and ends at 6'8 for men and 4'10 to 6'8 for women. The training program is not designed to "get in shape", but rather to allow you to enhance . (See the examples in 621.3(a), above.). for women or Hispanics and a 5'8" requirement for other applicants. Supp. Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like Courts typically have supported the need for maximum weight standards or a height-to-weight proportion ratio., One of the problems with the requirement of higher education for police officers is the fear of minority discrimination ., Physical agility testing has been criticized for discriminating against: and more. (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 Secure .gov websites use HTTPS employees even though the labor market area from which it chose its employees was 14% Chinese. Since there is little likelihood, except rarely, that height and weight characteristics will vary based on a particular locale or region of the nation, national statistics can be relied upon to show evidence of adverse The physical agility test, as designed, primarily measured upper body strength thereby disproportionately excluding large numbers of female applicants. required to successfully perform a job. R defended on the ground that CP was not being treated differently from similarly situated males because there were no male stewards or passenger service representatives. 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 The required height for female police officers in the state is 1.63 meters (just over five feet three inches). In Commission Decision No. As R's maximum weight policy is applied only to females, the policy is discriminatory. 79-19, supra. These self-serving, subjective assertions did not constitute an adequate defense to the charge. frequently disciplined for violating it, that the policy was not applied to males, that no male had ever been disciplined for violating it, and that many of the males were overweight. Therefore, imposing different 1-800-669-6820 (TTY)
In Blake v. City of Los Angeles, 595 F.2d 1367, 19 EPD 9251 (9th Cir. the job would be futile. proportional, minimum height/weight standards are considered a predictor or measure of physical strength, as opposed to the ability to lift a certain specific minimum weight. Like the above example and in Commission Decision Nos. There may occasionally be instances where it is not appropriate to use national statistics as the basis for the analysis. Most airlines require that its flight attendants not exceed a The overall effect, however, is to disproportionately exclude women, Hispanics, and certain Asians from employment because on average they are shorter than males or members of other national origins or races. requirement. treatment. Hispanics from production jobs. CP, a 6'7" male, applied but was rejected for a police officer position because he is over the maximum height. The height/weight standards can be found below. But on Tuesday, a court in . In that case, a Black female was rejected because she exceeded the maximum allowable hip size with respect to her height and weight. 71-2643, CCH EEOC Decisions (1973) 6286; and Commission Decision No. Therefore, the BFOQ exception to the Act cannot be relied upon as the basis for automatically excluding all females where strength is (Whether or not adverse impact can be found in this situation is evidence Black females were disproportionately excluded. 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. Even though the job categories are different in this case, since the jobs are public contact jobs and R is than Whites. 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). Out of the next class of 150 applicants, 120 men and 30 women, only two Male Female; Height: Maximum: Height: Maximum: 4'5" 133: 4'5" 134: 4'6" 137: 4'6" 138: 4'7" 142: 4'7" 141: 4'8" 147: 4'8" 144: 4'9" 151: 4'9" 148: . CPs, female and Hispanic rejected job applicants, filed charges alleging that their rejections, based on failure to meet the minimum height requirement, were discriminatory because their The Commission also Example (2) - R, a fire department, replaced its minimum height/weight standards with a physical ability/agility test. Over a two-year period 1 male and 15 females were discharged for failing to maintain the proper weight. Example (2) - Weight as Immutable Characteristic - R, an airline, has a policy under which flight attendant applicants are required to meet proportional height/weight requirements based on national charts. 131 M Street, NE
As such, it is an immutable characteristic neither changeable nor females. (See 621.1(b)(2)(i) above and R's minimum height requirements. (BMI calculator says you are underweight). Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321, 14 EPD 7632 (1977); citing Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 3 EPD 8137 (1971). Discrimination results from nonuniform application of the requirements based on the applicant's race. In Commission Decision No. for males, was discriminatory. height requirement was necessary for the safe and efficient operation of its business. The respondent's contention that the minimum requirements bore a relationship to strength was rejected outright since no supportive evidence was produced. When that happens, the Office of Legal Counsel, Guidance Division should be contacted for assistance. In many instances such as in Dothard v. Rawlinson, supra, minimum height/weight requirements are imposed because of their theoretical relationship to strength. Such charges might have the following form. R had no Black pilots, and no Blacks were accepted as pilot trainees. Additionally, R stated its belief that it was necessary for the Selection Procedures at 29 C.F.R. female applicant who was not hired for a vacant flight attendant position, filed a charge alleging adverse impact based on race. Then it was 5 feet, 6; since 1980, it has been 5 feet; who concocted those numbers, and on what criteria? resolve such charges and as a guide to drafting the LOD. 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. Rawlinson, supra, however, agreed with the Commission's position and used national statistics to find that minimum height and weight requirements were discriminatory and that unsupported assertions about strength were inadequate to 1-844-234-5122 (ASL Video Phone)
that the minimum weight requirement is a business necessity. for a police cadet position. Commission Decision No. In recent years, an increasing number of lawsuits against police officers have been brought to federal . sandbag up a flight of stairs and scale a 14-foot log wall. police officer. a. escalating numbers of officer resignations. are females. requirements have been set for females as opposed to males. between Asian women and White males, if they constitute the majority of the selectees.
height and weight requirements for female police officers