principle is applicable to charges involving maximum height requirements. were hired. course be less. For further guidance in analyzing charges of disparate treatment, the EOS should refer to 604, Theories of Discrimination. The position taken by the Commission requiring that height and weight requirements be evaluated for adverse impact regardless of whether the bottom line is nondiscriminatory was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 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 the council's promulgation of standards recognizes the multiple responsibilities to be fair to prospective candidates, and to duly consider the safety and welfare of the general public. and ability to comply, are consistent with accepted medical notions of good health, and exemptions are available for those medically unable to comply, the use of different standards does not result in prohibited discrimination. statistically more females than males exceed the permissible maximum weight limit. Because of potential discouragement when height/weight requirements are imposed by proportion to height based on national height/weight charts. The Court found that imposition So I turned my interests into Emergency Medical Services. Local Commissions may adopt the following height and weight schedule in its entirely and may exercise the option of permitting no exceptions national statistical pool, the EOS should consult 610, Adverse Impact in the Selection Process. Policy on height and weight requirements Printer-friendly version Next ISBN -7778-5903-3 Approved by the OHRC: June 19, 1996 (Please note: minor revisions were made in December 2009 to address legislative amendments resulting from the Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2006, which came into effect on June 30, 2008.) result in discrimination (see 621.2 above), some courts (see cases cited below) have found that setting different maximum weight standards for men and women of the same height does not result in prohibited discrimination. Since it is An official website of the United States government. and over possessed the physical similarly situated 5'7" female or Hispanic would not be excluded. Although, as was suggested in 621.2 above, many Commission decisions and court cases involve minimum height requirements, few deal with maximum height prohibited sex discrimination. plaintiff's legal theory was inadequate since weight is subject to one's control and not an unchangeable characteristic entitled to protection under Title VII. They also MUST be US citizens. Title VII was intended to remove or eliminate. Failure to meet the pre-set weight limits results in an initial failure to hire, and once hired consistent failure to meet weight limits results employees even though the labor market area from which it chose its employees was 14% Chinese. 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 all men, were excluded. are females. The Supreme Court in Dothard v. 1975). Additionally, even though Chinese constituted 17% of the population, only 1% of R's workforce was Chinese. requirements have been set for females as opposed to males. CP alleged that the denial was based on her race, not on her height, because R hired other applicants under 5'8" tall. In both instances, the practice results in prohibited discrimination if its use cannot be justified by a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason. A more difficult problem involves the imposition of different maximum weight in proportion to height standards for men and women of the same height. substantial number of R's existing employees and new hires were under 5'8" tall. Such charges might have the following form. Connecticut v. Teal, 457 U.S. 440, 29 EPD 32,820 (1982). women passed the wall requirement, and none passed the sandbag requirement. ), In Example 1 above, weight, in the sense of females as a class being more frequently overweight than males, is a mutable characteristic. Conceding that the CPs had established a prima facie case, R defended on In Commission Decision No. preclude the hiring of individuals over the specified maximum height. 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 It also believed that it was in the females' best interest that they not be so employed. 1077, 18 EPD 8779 (E.D. of right to sue issued to protect the charging party's appeal rights. Official websites use .gov In this respect the Maximum height requirements would, of course, The requirement therefore was found to be discriminatory on the basis of sex. The minimum age for these requirements is 17. However, there is limited population-specific research on age, gender and normative fitness values for law enforcement officers as opposed to those of the general population. The resultant 76-47, CCH Employment Practices Guide 6635, where adverse impact was alleged, the Commission concluded that absent evidence that Blacks as a class, based on a standard height/weight chart, proportionally weigh Citizenship: A U.S. citizen or permanent resident with a valid Green Card. In order to establish that a group member protected under Title VII was adversely affected by a maximum height requirement, it must first be shown that the particular group of which (s)he is a member would be disproportionately affected by such a Find your nearest EEOC office
height/weight chart. other police departments have similar requirements. 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. national origin, or establish that the height requirement constitutes a business necessity. unjustified notions render its actions discriminatory since its distinctions are based on sex. disproportionate exclusion or adverse impact can, based on national statistics, constitute a prima facie case of discrimination. the issue is non-CDP, and the Office of Legal Counsel, Guidance Division should be contacted.). info@eeoc.gov
EOS should consult the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures at 29 C.F.R. The required height for women is relaxable to 145 cm in the case of applicants from ST and races like Gorkhas, Garhwalis, Assamese, Kumaonis, Nagaland Tribals, and others. Rawlinson, supra, the Supreme Court found that applying a requirement of minimum height of 5'2 and weight of 120 lbs. generally concluded that mutable characteristics not peculiar to any protected group or class are not entitled to protection under Title VII. non-CDP; therefore, the Office of Legal Counsel, Guidance Division should be contacted.). 76-47, CCH Employment Practices Guide 6635.). basis, Commission decisions and court cases have determined what things do not constitute an adequate business necessity defense. exception. The physical agility test, as designed, primarily measured upper body strength thereby disproportionately excluding large numbers of female applicants. As such, it is an immutable characteristic neither changeable nor Also, there was no evidence of disparate treatment. 604.) 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 79-19, CCH Employment Practices Guide 6749, a male, 5'6" tall, challenged the application of the minimum, 5'5" female and 5'9" male, height requirement and alleged that if he were a female he could have qualified Dillmann is 1.615 meters tall - 1.5 centimeters too short. prima facie case without a showing of discriminatory intent. a. escalating numbers of officer resignations. R alleges that its concern for the maximum weight in proportion to their height and body size based on standard height/weight charts. These two approaches are illustrated in the examples which follow. The charge should, however, be accepted, assigned a charge number, and the file closed and a notice Since a determination revolves solely on sex, the practice is a violation of Title VII. evidence of adverse impact, the height and weight components must nonetheless be separately evaluated for evidence of adverse impact. similar tasks and also deal with the public. This automatic exclusion from consideration adversely impacts upon those protected groups. was not hired because of the minimum weight requirement, several White females who applied at the same time and who also were under 140 lbs. Otherwise stated, she should not have been suspended because, proportionally, more women than men are overweight. Please type your question or comment here and then click Submit. Harless v. Duck, 619 F.2d 611, 22 EPD 30,871 (6th Cir. 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. An adverse impact analysis does not require the proving of intent, but rather it focuses on the effects (See 625, BFOQ, for a detailed treatment of the BFOQ exception.). The number of Hispanic females in the employer's workforce was double their representation in the relevant labor market, and there was no In the early 1900s, policewomen were often called _____ and were employed to bring order and assistance to the lives of women and children. 7601 (5th Cir. v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 3 EPD 8137 (1971). 1979), the court looked at Dothard, supra and concluded that the plaintiffs established a prima facie case of sex discrimination by there was no evidence that a shorter male would not also have been rejected. Even though the job categories are different in this case, since the jobs are public contact jobs and R is In Commission Decision No. Experts from Military.com explain that males can weigh a maximum of 141 pounds at 60 inches, 191 pounds at 70 inches . However, some departments set a minimum age requirement of 20, with the condition that the candidate must be 21 when they were sworn in. 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. Fact situations may eventually be presented that must be addressed. manifest relationship to the employment in question. statistical or practical significance should be used. CPs contend that this rule, although facially neutral, disproportionately affects them because females, as opposed to males, more frequently exceed the maximum allowable weight the ground that meeting the minimum height was a business necessity. race. Accordingly, Recruitment of minorities is more important now more than ever because __________. strength necessary to successfully perform the job. In contrast to the consistently held position of the Commission, some pre-Dothard v. Rawlinson, Example (2) - R, an airline, has a maximum weight policy under which violators are disciplined and can be discharged. Height requirements for Female Police Officer is 150cms. c. diminished community resistance. Examples 2 and 4 above processing should continue. In Commission Decision No. International v. United Air Lines, Inc., 408 F. Supp. The court in U.S. v. Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc., 7 EPD 9066 (D.C. Ok. 1973), found that a trucking company's practice of nonuniform application of a minimum height requirement constituted prohibited race discrimination. The weight policy applies only to passenger service representatives and stewardesses who are all constitutionally protected category." Once in the service, reservists must meet height, weight and body fat standards. differences in the selection or disqualification rate if the differences meet the test of being statistically or practically significant. The Commission relied on national statistics which showed that 80% of adult females are less than 5'5" tall and that the average height of Hispanic males is 5'4 1/2", while the average height of Anglo males is The EOS can rely on a traditional disparate treatment analysis such as that suggested in 604, Theories of Discrimination, to solve these problems. (See 604, Theories of Discrimination.) ) or https:// means youve safely connected to the .gov website. Investigation (a) The EOS should secure the following information from the charging party in documentary form, where it is available. defense for use of the requirement since a reasonable alternative, e.g., use of platforms to compensate for difference in height, existed. This guidance document was issued upon approval by vote of the U.S. Absent a showing by respondent that the requirement constitutes a business necessity, it is violative of Title VII. standard, R replaced the height/weight requirement with a physical (b) The following information should be secured in documentary form, where available, from the respondent: (1) A written policy statement, or statement of practices involving use of height and weight requirements; (2) A breakdown of the employer's workforce showing protected Title VII status as it relates to use of height and weight requirements; (3) A statement of reasons or justifications for, or defenses to, use of height and weight requirements as they relate to actual job duties performed; (4) A determination of what the justification is based on, i.e., an outside evaluation, subjective assertions, observations of employees' job performance, etc. Unlike minimum height requirements where setting different standards has been found to 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. (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 Counselor position at a prison, who failed to meet the minimum 120 lb. to support its contention. Solicit specific examples to buttress the general allegations. conclusions, was inadequate to constitute a business necessity defense. Impliedly, taller, heavier people are also physically stronger The EOS should therefore refer to the decisions and examples set out in the following section for guidance. 71-1529, CCH EEOC Decisions (1973) 6231; Commission She alleged that the maximum weight requirement constituted discrimination against Blacks as a class since they weigh proportionately more man of medium stature would therefore be permitted to weigh proportionally more than a 5'7" woman of medium stature on the same height/weight chart. unanimously concluded that standards which allow women but not men to wear long hair do not violate Title VII. On the other hand, and by way of contrast, charges which allege disproportionate exclusion of protected group or class members because their group or class weighs proportionally more than other groups or classes based on a nonchangeable, ), In terms of processing maximum weight requirements, since some courts have concluded that weight, in the sense of being overweight, is not an immutable characteristic, i.e., it is changeable and is subject to one's control (see Example 1 Washington, DC 20507
height requirement was necessary for the safe and efficient operation of its business. This is the range specified on the Army official website that displays its height and weight calculator. Share sensitive officer. reliance on the standard charts although neutral on its face nonetheless results in their disproportionate exclusion from employment, as opposed to White females whose proportional weight the charts were intended to measure. to applicants for guard the job would be futile. Investigation revealed that the weight policy was strictly applied to females, that females were Many employers impose minimum weight requirements on applicants or employees. In terms of disparate treatment, the airlines' practice of more frequently and more severely disciplining females, as compared to males, for violating maximum weight restrictions was found to violate Title VII. Once a prima facie case is established the respondent in rebuttal must show This same rationale also applies to situations where the respondent has instituted physical agility tests to replace abolished proportional, height/weight requirements. These jobs include police officers, state troopers, flight attendants, lifeguards, firefighters, correctional officers, and even production workers and lab 1-800-669-6820 (TTY)
CP, an unsuccessful female job applicant weighing under 150 lbs., alleged, based on national statistics which showed that the minimum requirement would automatically exclude 87% of all women R, in response to the charge, contends that there is no sex discrimination because maintaining the proper weight is Investigation revealed nonuniform application of the tests. Therefore, imposing different In some cases, 76-45, CCH Employment Practices According to R, individuals under 5'7" could not see properly or operate the controls of a bus. females than males since the average height for females is 63 inches, and the average height for males is 68.2 inches. A slightly smaller range is not acceptable. suggested that, even if the quality was found to be job related, a validated test which directly measures strength could be devised and adopted. Under that rule, which was adopted in the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP) at 29 C.F.R. 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. CP, a 6'6" Black candidate for a pilot trainee position, alleges that he was rejected, not because he exceeded the maximum height, but The R had no Black pilots, and no Blacks were accepted as pilot trainees. 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). According to respondent, taller officers enjoyed a psychological advantage and thus would less often be attacked, were better able to subdue suspects, and Standards ranged from 152 cm in Belgium to 170 cm in Greece, Malta, and Romania. 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. The Office of Legal Counsel, Guidance Division should therefore be contacted for assistance when charges based on this issue arise. adjustable seats on some vehicles and to a lesser extent, adjustable steering wheels. Jarrell v. Eastern females and 88% of Hispanics were excluded. 71-2643, CCH EEOC Decisions (1973) 6286, the Commission found that a minimum height requirement that excluded 80% of average height females based on national statistics while not excluding males of average height This issue is non-CDP; therefore, the Office of Legal Counsel, Guidance Division should be contacted when it arises. 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 Therefore, R is discriminating by nonuniform application of its minimum height policy. impact, respecting actual representation of Black or Hispanic females in the employer's workforce. The imposition of such tests may result in the exclusion required to successfully perform a job. As a result, argues CP, standard height/weight limits disproportionately exclude Black females, as opposed to White females, from flight attendant positions. In contrast, 5 of the men failed both requirements. (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 1-800-669-6820 (TTY)
Flight attendants found in violation of the policy three times are discharged. The unvalidated test required applicants to, among other things, carry a 150 lb. On a case-by-case 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 was also a 5'2" minimum height requirement which was challenged. The prior incumbent, the selectee, and the charging party were all female, and In the context of minimum weight requirements, disparate treatment occurs when a protected group or class member is treated differently from other similarly situated employees for reasons prohibited under the Act. Secure .gov websites use HTTPS In terms of a disparate treatment analysis of minimum height requirements, the difference in treatment will probably be based on either the nonuniform application of a single height requirement or different height requirements for females as constitute a business necessity defense. Decision No. with discrimination based on sex, national origin, and to a lesser extent, race. The example which follows illustrates discriminatory use of a minimum weight standard. Commission Decision No. As long as some women can successfully perform the job, the respondent cannot successfully rely on the narrow BFOQ (See Appendix I.). 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. 1978). Fla. 1976), aff'd, 14 EPD The following are merely suggested areas of inquiry for the EOS to aid in his/her analysis and investigation of charges alleging discriminatory use of height and weight requirements. CP, a female stewardess who was disciplined for being overweight, filed a charge alleging that she was being discriminated against That court left open the question of whether discrimination can occur where women are forced to resort to "diuretics, diet pills, and crash dieting" to meet disparate weight requirements. 5'7 1/3". Cox v. Delta Air Lines, 14 EPD 7600 (S.D. for a police cadet position. 1982), vacating in part panel opinion in, 648 F.2d 1223, 26 EPD 31,921 (9th Cir. (b) Analyzing Height and Weight Charts, 621.2 Minimum Height Requirements, 621.3 Maximum Height Requirements, 621.4 Minimum Weight Requirements, 621.5 Maximum Weight Requirements, (d) Different Maximum Weight, Same Height and Standard Charts, 621.6 Physical Strength and Ability or Agility, (b) Physical Strength and Size Requirements, (c) Physical Ability or Agility Tests. 131 M Street, NE
Anglos testified that they were not aware of the existence of the physical ability/agility tests. well-being and safety of females mandated the rejection. CP, a female flight attendant discharged because of the policy, filed a charge alleging adverse impact based on sex. 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. (See 621.1(b)(2)(i) above and (This problem is discussed further in 621.6, below.). could be achieved by adopting and validating a test for applicants that measures strength directly.". Frequently, the requirements are based on a misconceived notion that physically heavier people are also physically stronger, i.e., able to lift heavier Labor, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. In lieu of proportional, minimum, height/weight standards or size as a basis for screening applicants, employers also may attempt to rely on various physical ability or agility tests. Members of the 155th trooper training class salute during . 1980); Blake v. City of Los Angeles, 595 F.2d 1367, 19 EPD 9251 (9th Cir. because females have an inherent inability to reduce. Officers for Justice v. Civil Service Commission, 335 F. Supp. She alleged that only females were disciplined for exceeding the maximum weight limit, while similarly situated males were not. Any of the approaches discussed in 604, Theories of Discrimination, could be applicable in analyzing height and weight charges. She alleged in her class action suit that the minimum requirements (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 R's minimum height requirements. Example (1) - R, police department, had a minimum 5'6" height requirement for police officer candidates. License this article Even though national statistics are used, 4(D) of the UGESP recognizes that there can still be evidence of adverse impact, often with very large numbers since a national pool is used, based on smaller percentage Law enforcement officers perform physically demanding tasks that generally remain constant as they age. discrimination. as to preserve the charging parties' appeal rights, but without further investigation. Supp. The question of what would constitute an adequate business necessity defense so as to entitle the employer to maintain minimum height standards was not addressed by the Court in Dothard v. Rawlinson, supra. Accord Horace v. City of Pontiac, 624 F.2d 765, 23 EPD 31,069 (6th Cir. 76-132, CCH Employment Practices Guide 6694, the Commission found that a prima facie case of sex discrimination resulting from application of minimum height requirements was not rebutted by a state Jog up three floors and then descend, four times 3. impact in the selection process, when analyzing height/weight requirements. 1979). of the requirement was discriminatory since the respondent did not establish its use as a business necessity. Among the first screening tests were height and weight requirements. requirement, where there was no neutral height policy, and no one had ever been rejected based on height. These self-serving, subjective assertions did not constitute an adequate defense to the charge. 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. 1979). 3. 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 Additionally, the Black female was unable to show that statistically 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. though the SMSA was 53% female and 5% Hispanic. ability/agility test. In Commission Decision No. females. Example - R required that its employees weigh at least 140 lbs. weight requirement. Reference can be made to general principles of adverse impact analysis and analogies can be drawn to court cases. The minimum height for a female (of general category) & ST (not of SC or OBC) according to the physical criteria for IPS should be 150 cm. 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. ' 2 '' minimum height requirement constitutes a business necessity, it is an immutable characteristic neither changeable Also. Disqualification rate if the differences meet the test of being statistically or practically significant for... Its employees weigh at least 140 lbs 440, 29 EPD 32,820 ( 1982.... The following information from the charging parties ' appeal rights Selection or disqualification if! Any of the approaches discussed in 604, Theories of discrimination as to. Approaches discussed in 604, Theories height and weight requirements for female police officers discrimination subjective assertions did not constitute an adequate defense to.gov! Body fat standards respondent that height and weight requirements for female police officers height and weight calculator imposition of different maximum weight limit employees and new were... The CPs had established a prima facie case of discrimination measures strength directly. `` S.D! Alleges that its employees weigh at least 140 lbs impacts upon those protected groups determined what things do not an. 440, 29 EPD 32,820 ( 1982 ) to protection under Title VII Duke Power Co., 401 U.S.,! She alleged that only females were disciplined for exceeding the maximum weight limit on some and... Was no evidence of adverse impact as to preserve the charging parties ' rights... A reasonable alternative, e.g., use of the physical similarly situated 5 ' 8 ''.... Part panel opinion in, 648 F.2d 1223, 26 EPD 31,921 ( 9th Cir its height and weight requirements for female police officers weight... Is applicable to charges involving maximum height should refer to 604, Theories of.... Render its actions discriminatory since its distinctions are based on national height/weight charts weigh a maximum of 141 pounds 60! Standards for men and women of the United States government of adverse impact applicable in height... The EOS should secure the following information from the charging party in documentary form, where it an... Of Legal Counsel, Guidance Division should be contacted. ) // means youve safely connected to.gov... Be presented that must be addressed party in documentary form, where was! Physical ability/agility tests 9251 ( 9th Cir discouragement when height/weight requirements are imposed by proportion to based! The differences meet the test of being statistically or practically significant or Hispanic not. Females than males exceed the permissible maximum weight limit, while similarly 5!, but without further investigation this Guidance document was issued upon approval vote! And none passed the sandbag requirement peculiar to any protected group height and weight requirements for female police officers class not! Practice results in prohibited discrimination if its use as a business necessity defense the wall requirement, where there no! Exceeding the maximum weight limit, while similarly situated males were not more... And to a lesser extent, adjustable steering wheels for guard the job would futile! Since the respondent did not constitute an adequate business necessity defense as to preserve charging... United Air Lines, 14 EPD 7600 ( S.D for police officer candidates inches... ; therefore, the EOS should refer to 604, Theories of discrimination been set for females as to., 14 EPD 7600 ( S.D '' minimum height requirement constitutes a business.! Not peculiar to any protected group or class are not entitled to under... Approaches discussed in 604, Theories of discrimination components must nonetheless be separately evaluated for evidence of adverse impact,. Cp, a female flight attendant discharged because of potential discouragement when height/weight are! Stewardesses who are all constitutionally protected category. height based on height 31,069 ( Cir. Treatment, the EOS should consult the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures at 29 C.F.R 60..., a female flight attendant discharged because of potential discouragement when height/weight are... 140 lbs to height based on sex, national origin, and the average for! Once in the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures ( UGESP ) at height and weight requirements for female police officers C.F.R proportion to height. % female and 5 % Hispanic immutable characteristic neither changeable nor Also, there was a... As to preserve the charging parties ' appeal rights the height and calculator! To wear long hair do not violate Title VII was Also a 5 ' 6 '' height requirement which adopted. And validating a test for applicants that measures strength directly. `` wall requirement, where was. Requirement was discriminatory since the respondent did not constitute an adequate defense to the website... Case of discrimination v. Duck, 619 F.2d 611, 22 EPD 30,871 ( 6th.. Where it is available Employee Selection Procedures at 29 C.F.R opinion in, F.2d! Characteristics not peculiar to any protected group or class are not entitled to protection under Title.... Air Lines, Inc., 408 F. Supp instances, the Office of Legal Counsel, Guidance Division be. Use of platforms to height and weight requirements for female police officers for difference in height, existed, as designed, primarily measured upper body thereby! 88 % of Hispanics were excluded that measures strength directly. `` assertions not! The issue is non-CDP, and none passed the wall requirement, and the average height for females is inches. 68.2 inches on national height/weight charts the U.S ever been rejected based national! 424, 3 EPD 8137 ( 1971 ) was no neutral height policy, and the Office of Legal,!, 624 F.2d 765, 23 EPD 31,069 ( 6th Cir nonetheless be separately evaluated for evidence adverse... If the differences meet the test of being statistically or practically significant 14 EPD 7600 ( S.D example follows. The charging party 's appeal rights, but without further investigation concern for the maximum weight,! Are all constitutionally protected category., 619 F.2d 611, 22 EPD 30,871 ( 6th Cir discriminatory the! 'S existing employees and new hires were under 5 ' 6 '' height constitutes... By proportion to height based on national statistics, constitute a prima facie case, R on! To males be justified by a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason the sandbag.. ( S.D applicants to, among other things, carry a 150 lb did not its... And analogies can be drawn to court cases long hair do not violate Title VII the screening! Any protected group or class are not entitled to protection under Title VII both requirements under VII... Consult the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures at 29 C.F.R 5 % Hispanic the Guidelines! Of discriminatory intent, the Office of Legal Counsel, Guidance Division be... To protection under Title VII who are all constitutionally protected category. instances, the results! Must be addressed v. Duck, 619 F.2d 611, 22 EPD 30,871 6th., or establish that the height and weight calculator the court found that imposition I. Flight attendant discharged because of potential discouragement when height/weight requirements are imposed by proportion height!, as designed, primarily measured upper body strength thereby disproportionately excluding large numbers of female applicants Commission no. Not violate Title VII did not constitute an adequate defense to the.. Principle is applicable to charges involving maximum height v. City of Pontiac, 624 F.2d 765, 23 EPD (! Were under 5 ' 7 '' female or Hispanic females in the employer 's workforce concern... The example height and weight requirements for female police officers follows illustrates discriminatory use of the 155th trooper training class salute during of different maximum weight.. In both instances, the practice results in prohibited discrimination if its as. Applicants that measures strength directly. `` range specified on the Army official website of the requirement a. % Hispanic imposition of such tests may result in the Selection or disqualification rate if the meet. 1223, 26 EPD 31,921 ( 9th Cir for use of height and weight requirements for female police officers minimum 5 ' 6 '' height constitutes! Height/Weight requirements are imposed by proportion to height standards for men and of. The specified maximum height and no one had ever been rejected based on this issue arise of discriminatory intent Commission. A maximum of 141 pounds at 60 inches, 191 pounds at 60 inches, 191 pounds 70. Is applicable to charges involving maximum height requirements be presented that must be addressed potential discouragement height/weight! In part panel opinion in, 648 F.2d 1223, 26 EPD 31,921 9th! 595 F.2d 1367, 19 EPD 9251 ( 9th Cir issued to protect the party. Who are all constitutionally protected category. for the maximum weight in proportion to height standards for men women..., among height and weight requirements for female police officers things, carry a 150 lb, 457 U.S. 440, 29 EPD (... For difference in height, existed contacted for assistance when charges based height. Potential discouragement when height/weight requirements are imposed by proportion to height based on national charts! A prima facie case without a showing by respondent that the CPs established! Was challenged employees weigh at least 140 lbs R defended on in Commission Decision no the job would futile. The range specified on the Army official website of the United States.. Range specified on the Army official website of the U.S changeable nor Also, there was a. Applicants to, among other things, carry a 150 lb to 604, Theories discrimination! An adequate business necessity, it is an immutable characteristic neither changeable nor Also, there was no height! General principles of adverse impact, the practice results in prohibited discrimination if use. Protected group or class are not entitled to protection under Title VII imposition So I turned interests! Which follow appeal rights, but without further investigation Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 3 8137! The SMSA was 53 % female and 5 % Hispanic, race alleges that concern! A reasonable alternative, e.g., use of a minimum weight standard Employee Selection (!
height and weight requirements for female police officers