In Blake v. Town 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.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 best gay hookup apps nyc 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, age.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.

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.

Due to the fact over instances recommend, costs would-be presented based on disparate medication or adverse impression associated with an optimum height criteria, in addition to Commission might have jurisdiction over the matter-of this new fees.

(b) Disparate Medication –

Different medication happens when a safe classification otherwise classification affiliate try managed quicker favorably than other furthermore established professionals to possess grounds prohibited not as much as Title VII. (Get a hold of § 604, Theories out-of Discrimination.) That it first concept can be applied so you’re able to costs connected with limitation height requirements. Hence, missing a legitimate, nondiscriminatory need, discrimination can result about imposition of various limitation height requirements if any maximum top standards getting female instead of likewise depending men teams. (Understand the examples for the § 621.3(a), above.)

Even though there are no Percentage conclusion talking about disparate therapy resulting from access to a max level needs, brand new EOS can use the essential disparate medication analysis established into the § 604, Theories of Discrimination, to answer such fees and as the basics of creating this 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.