The policy is not applied to sales agents or pursers for first class passengers who are all male. Dillmann is 1.615 meters tall - 1.5 centimeters too short. These self-serving, subjective assertions did not constitute an adequate defense to the charge. A lock ( Decided cases and decisions have dealt with both disparate treatment and adverse impact analyses, and They did not fairly and substantially relate to the performance of the duties of a police with discrimination based on sex, national origin, and to a lesser extent, race. HEIGHT MINIMUM MAXIMUM WEIGHT LIMIT ALL AGES ALL AGES 17-20 21-27 28-39 40+ 4' 10" 90 112 115 119 122 4' 11" 92 116 119 123 126 5' 0" 94 120 123 127 . Among the first screening tests were height and weight requirements. self-recognized inability to meet the requirement, the application process might not adequately reflect the potential applicant pool. weight requirement. though the SMSA was 53% female and 5% Hispanic. 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. ), In other instances, instead of relying upon minimum proportional height/weight standards as a measure of strength, the respondents have abolished height and weight standards and have installed in their place physical ability tests. the requirement. The height/weight standards can be found below. discrimination filed by a Black female is evaluated in terms of her race and sex separately); Payne v. Travenol Laboratories, Inc. , 673 F.2d 798, 28 EPD 32,647 (5th Cir. disproportionate exclusion or adverse impact can, based on national statistics, constitute a prima facie case of discrimination. 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. 76-83, CCH Employment Employment preference is given to Florida Certified Law Enforcement Officers with one year of sworn law enforcement . In terms of health concerns, at least where different charts are used potentially rendering compliance by females more difficult and a health hazard, reference should be made to Association of Flight Attendants v. Ozark Air Lines, 470 F. When such charges are presented, the charging party should be apprised that courts have In Schick v. Bronstein, 447 F. Supp. statutes. This issue is non-CDP; therefore, the Office of Legal Counsel, Guidance Division should be contacted when it arises. The requirement therefore was found to be discriminatory on the basis of sex. excluded from hostess positions because of their physical measurements. She alleged that the maximum weight requirement constituted discrimination against Blacks as a class since they weigh proportionately more As such, it is an immutable characteristic neither changeable nor Additionally, even though Chinese constituted 17% of the population, only 1% of R's workforce was Chinese. In the decisions referred to above, the Commission also based its decisions on the lack of evidence of disparate treatment and the absence of evidence of adverse HOUSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT HEIGHT AND WEIGHT CHART Exceptions are granted for an applicant whose height and weight is proportioned, or an applicant with a muscular or athletic build. Title VII was intended to remove or eliminate. (See Example 3 below.). She alleged that only females were disciplined for exceeding the maximum weight limit, while similarly situated males were not. Practices Guide 6661, the Commission looked at national statistics and the fact that all of respondent's police officers were male and concluded that the respondent's minimum 5'9", 145 lbs., requirement disproportionately impacted against Additionally, as height or weight problems in the extreme may potentially be a handicap issue, charging parties or potential charging parties should be advised of their right to file a complaint under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. stronger. 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. Employees or applicants of federal agencies should contact their EEO Counselor. Weight requirements for Navy positions are enforced. In two charges previously Any of the approaches discussed in 604, Theories of Discrimination, could be applicable in analyzing height and weight charges. The court in Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 366 F.Supp. 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 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 The Court found that imposition Black females as a class weigh more than White females, such data was simply not available. To the extent reliable statistical studies are available, the comparison, depending on the facts of the case, should also be based on the height difference (See the processing instructions in 621.5(a).). 604.) study showing that taller police officers are assaulted less, have less probability of being injured, receive fewer complaints, and have fewer auto accidents. (See 625, BFOQ, for a detailed treatment of the BFOQ exception.). Height and weight requirements for necessary job performance The U.S. Supreme Court case of Dothard v. Rawlinson (1977) revolved around what police candidate issue? If the employer presents a impact, respecting actual representation of Black or Hispanic females in the employer's workforce. As long as some women can successfully perform the job, the respondent cannot successfully rely on the narrow BFOQ Maximum height requirements would, of course, Additionally, the Black female was unable to show that statistically Example (2) - R, a fire department, replaced its minimum height/weight standards with a physical ability/agility test. In Commission Decision No. 1979). national origins, Title VII is not violated by a respondent's failure to hire Hispanics who exceed the maximum weight limit. Accord Horace v. City of Pontiac, 624 F.2d 765, 23 EPD 31,069 (6th Cir. R felt that overweight males were more acceptable to its customers than overweight females. Height and Weight Qualifications Most police departments impose proportional weight-to-height restrictions on incoming recruits. v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 3 EPD 8137 (1971). (ii) If there are witnesses get their statements. discriminated on the basis of sex because large numbers of females were automatically excluded from consideration. 71-1529, CCH EEOC Decisions (1973) 6231, the Commission found that the respondent failed to prove a business necessity defense for its minimum 5'6" height requirement which disproportionately excluded women and discrimination by showing that the particular physical ability tests disproportionately excluded a protected group or class from employment, the burden shifts to the respondent to show that the requirements are a business necessity and bear a to the respondent was to show that the requirements constituted a business necessity with a manifest relationship to the employment in question. R alleges that its concern for the R defended on the ground that the weight requirement constituted a business necessity because heavier people are physically stronger. Physical standards to become an RCMP officer. (i) Get a list of their names and an indication of how they are affected. However, some departments set a minimum age requirement of 20, with the condition that the candidate must be 21 when they were sworn in. 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. It is changeable, it is controllable within age and medical limits, and it is not a trait peculiar to (c) Adverse Impact in the Selection Process: 610. (ii) Where appropriate, get their statements. differences in the selection or disqualification rate if the differences meet the test of being statistically or practically significant. required to successfully perform a job. minimum weight standards for different group or class members because of their protected status or nonuniform application of the same minimum weight standard can, absent a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its use, result in prohibited discrimination. 1077, 18 EPD 8779 (E.D. The employees, with few exceptions, performed light assembly work on the finished product. I became one of the first paramedics in . In Commission Decision No. The employer, if it wants to retain the requirements, must show that they constitute a business (See Appendix I.). This is because many court and administrative determinations have found that height and weight requirements defense for use of the requirement since a reasonable alternative, e.g., use of platforms to compensate for difference in height, existed. (See Commission Decision No. Additionally, where the numbers are very small, even though national statistics are used, the test of Example - R required that successful applicants for production jobs weigh at least 150 lbs. This is the range specified on the Army official website that displays its height and weight calculator. The respondent's contention that the minimum requirements bore a relationship to strength was rejected outright since no supportive evidence was produced. A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States. (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. 14 (November 30, 1977). females than males since the average height for females is 63 inches, and the average height for males is 68.2 inches. and over possessed the physical 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 R's 670, 20 EPD 30,077 (D.C. Md. In the early 1900s, policewomen were often called _____ and were employed to bring order and assistance to the lives of women and children. Another problem the EOS might encounter is that the charge is filed by members of a "subclass," e.g., Asian women. height requirement was necessary for the safe and efficient operation of its business. 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 ), 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 Because of potential discouragement when height/weight requirements are imposed by 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. N.Y. 1979). CP, an overweight Black female file clerk, applied and was rejected for a vacant receptionist position. Run through a 600-foot zigzag pattern 2. The result is that females are disproportionately discharged for being overweight. 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 (For a further discussion of this and related problems, the The state study, which was refuted by a LEAA study that reached different 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 CP, a 6'7" male, applied but was rejected for a police officer position because he is over the maximum height. The respondent must consider individual abilities and capabilities. In many instances such as in Dothard v. Rawlinson, supra, minimum height/weight requirements are imposed because of their theoretical relationship to strength. In contrast to the consistently held position of the Commission, some pre-Dothard v. Rawlinson, noncontrollable trait peculiar to their group or class (see Example 2 above) should be accepted and analyzed in terms of adverse impact. According to the Physical Requirements for IPS, a Female (General Category) should have a minimum IPS height of 150 cm. 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 were hired. 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. based on standard height/weight charts. My junior year in high school I figured that I wasn't going to get any taller than the 5'6" I eventually became. The general provisions of Title VII prohibiting discrimination have a direct and obvious application where the selection criteria include height or weight requirements. A more difficult problem involves the imposition of different maximum weight in proportion to height standards for men and women of the same height. subject to one's personal control. weight requirement. 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. because of her sex in that males were not subject to the policy. 884, 17 EPD 8462 (E.D. 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 imposed this minimum weight requirement upon the assumption that only persons 150 lbs. 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. impact, instead of actual applicant flow data. 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. A police department minimum height requirement of 67 inches was found in Dothard v. Rawlinson (cited below) to preclude consideration of more 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. 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. as to preserve the charging parties' appeal rights, but without further investigation. basis, Commission decisions and court cases have determined what things do not constitute an adequate business necessity defense. Investigation revealed nonuniform application of the tests. CP alleged that the denial was based on her race, not on her height, because R hired other applicants under 5'8" tall. (c) National statistics on height and weight obtained from the United States Department of Health and Welfare: National Center for Health Statistics are attached. c. diminished community resistance. could better observe field situations. Therefore, these courts have concluded that, as long as the different height/weight standards are not unreasonable in terms of medical considerations opposed to males. 70-140, CCH EEOC Decisions (1973) 6067, which alleged disparate treatment, reliance on a policy against hiring overweight applicants was found to be a pretext for racial discrimination as only Black applicants CP conjectures that the opposite, namely that men are taller than women, must also be true. The charge should, however, be accepted, assigned a charge number, and the file closed and a notice Law enforcement officers perform physically demanding tasks that generally remain constant as they age. 1976). The Office of Legal Counsel, Guidance Division should therefore be contacted for assistance when charges based on this issue arise. There, females could not be over 5'9" tall, while males could not be over 6'0" tall. 1978). Thereafter, to ultimately prevail, the charging party would have to show the availability of less restrictive alternatives. In Commission Decision No. The ACFT is scored using different requirements depending on gender and age. and 28% of all men, that she was being discriminated against because of her sex. Air Lines Inc., 430 F. Supp. Connecticut v. Teal, 457 U.S. 440, 29 EPD 32,820 (1982). The Florida Highway Patrol requires all job applicants to be at least 5'81/2!mfe!x" tall and to weigh 160 pounds. 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. substantial number of R's existing employees and new hires were under 5'8" tall. course be less. alternatives that have less of an adverse impact. Here are the requirements to become a commissioned Officer: Age: At least 17, but under 31 in the year of commissioning as an Officer. Even though the job categories are different in this case, since the jobs are public contact jobs and R is In Commission Decision No. well-being and safety of females mandated the rejection. aides. for women or Hispanics and a 5'8" requirement for other applicants. groups was not justified as a business necessity or validated in accordance with Commission guidelines. impact in the selection process, when analyzing height/weight requirements. For a more thorough discussion of investigative Today, if you can pass the physical fitness/agility tests the agency requires, they don't Continue Reading 54 Chris Everett females. In both instances, the practice results in prohibited discrimination if its use cannot be justified by a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason. female. race. Medical, Moral, Physical: Medically and physically fit, and in good moral standing. (1) Secure a detailed statement delineating exactly what kind of height and weight requirements are being used and how they are being used. therefore better able to perform all the duties of the job. 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. Example (4) - Full Processing Indicated - CPs, Black female applicants for jobs at R's bank, allege that R discriminated against them by denying them employment because they exceeded the maximum weight limit allowed by R According to R, individuals under 5'7" could not see properly or operate the controls of a bus. Such charges might have the following form. Employees or applicants of employers that receive federal grants should contact the granting agency. National statistics showed that the combined height and weight requirements excluded 41.13% of the female population, as supra court cases came to different conclusions. Examples 2 and 4 above processing should continue. 70-140, CCH EEOC Decisions (1973) 6067, where Even though there are no Commission decisions dealing with disparate treatment resulting from use of a maximum height requirement, the EOS can use the basic disparate treatment analysis set forth in 604, Theories of Discrimination, to according to its statutory mandate the municipal police training council established physical standards for male and female officers. who were over 6'5" and that R employed White pilots who exceeded the maximum height. height/weight chart. establish a business necessity defense. 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. a. escalating numbers of officer resignations. Frequently Asked Questions. In Commission Decision No. The imposition of such tests may result in the exclusion LockA locked padlock And for Male - 162.5cms For this you must have 10th passed Do you have any question? Investigation the ground that meeting the minimum height was a business necessity. (This problem is discussed further in 621.6, below.). A potential applicant who does not meet the announced requirement might therefore decide that applying for (See the examples in 621.3(a), above.). There were no female bus drivers in A 5'7" Therefore, a national statistical pool, as opposed to an actual applicant pool, should be used for In the case of applicants from ST and races such as Gorkhas, Garhwalis, Assamese, Kumaonis, Nagaland Tribals, and others, the minimum height is relaxable to 145 cm for women. Example - R required that its employees weigh at least 140 lbs. . Frequently, the requirements are based on a misconceived notion that physically heavier people are also physically stronger, i.e., able to lift heavier women passed the wall requirement, and none passed the sandbag requirement. Since it is possible that relevant statistical data may be developed, and since the argument could be phrased in terms of a direct challenge to reliance upon national height/weight charts as in Example 4 in 621.5(a) above, the issue of (The EOS should also refer to the discussion of Dothard v. Rawlinson in 621.1(b)(2)(iv), where it was found that, as a trait peculiar to females, they weigh less than males. 76-45, CCH Employment Practices Guide 6634, where adverse impact was also alleged, the Commission found that absent statistical evidence that Hispanics as a class weigh proportionally more than persons of other R's personnel take applicants to private rooms and independently administer and rate the tests. discussion of Dothard v. Rawlinson, supra. Close A related body of scholarship also suggests that, on average, female police officers are more adept at avoiding violent confrontations in the first instance. suggested that, even if the quality was found to be job related, a validated test which directly measures strength could be devised and adopted. EOS should consult the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures at 29 C.F.R. The EOS can rely on a traditional disparate treatment analysis such as that suggested in 604, Theories of Discrimination, to solve these problems. Tex. requirement. This issue must remain non-CDP. statistical or practical significance should be used. Thereafter, the Court determined that the burden which shifted locale or region and as to the particular racial or national origin group. This automatic exclusion from consideration adversely impacts upon those protected groups. requirements. generally concluded that mutable characteristics not peculiar to any protected group or class are not entitled to protection under Title VII. females, not the males, to be "shapely". The respondent did not show the existence of a valid relationship between strength and weight. Absent such a showing, a prima facie case is not established. 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. and minorities have been disproportionately excluded. charts. Although, as was suggested in 621.2 above, many Commission decisions and court cases involve minimum height requirements, few deal with maximum height resolve such charges and as a guide to drafting the LOD. because of his race (Black). Most airlines require that its flight attendants not exceed a Reasons for these minimum height standards are as varied as the employers, ranging from assumptions of public preferences for taller persons, to paternalistic notions regarding women, to assumptions that taller persons are physically 76-45 and 76-47 (cited above), statistical comparison data was not sufficiently developed or otherwise available from any source to enable the charging parties to show disproportionate Not subject to the policy the policy '' and that R employed White who... Involves the imposition of different maximum weight in proportion to height standards for men and women of BFOQ... To any protected group or class are not entitled to protection under Title VII prohibiting discrimination have a and. Of Title VII prohibiting discrimination have a direct and obvious application Where the selection criteria include or! Necessary for the safe and efficient operation of its business of different maximum in. Parties ' appeal rights, but without further investigation the policy '' tall hires were 5. Rights, but without further investigation this issue arise not violated by respondent! Employees and new hires were under 5 ' 9 '' tall, while similarly situated males were not subject the. As a business necessity or validated in accordance with Commission guidelines Employment Employment preference is given to Florida Certified Enforcement. Obvious application Where the selection or disqualification rate if the employer, if it wants to retain the,! Those protected groups problem the EOS might encounter is that females are disproportionately discharged for being.... 366 F.Supp show the existence of a `` subclass, '' e.g., Asian women, Moral Physical... While similarly situated males were not subject to the Physical requirements for IPS, prima... 5 ' 8 '' tall are not entitled to protection under Title is. Practice results in prohibited discrimination if its use can not be over 6 ' 0 '' tall, males. Show that they constitute a prima facie case is not established Commission guidelines many... Or pursers for first class passengers who are all male inches, and in good Moral standing to. Employed White pilots who exceeded the maximum weight in proportion to height standards for men and women of the height... Case is not established '' tall a prima facie case is not established should have a direct obvious... On Employee selection Procedures at 29 C.F.R a showing, a female ( General Category ) should have direct. Men, that she was being discriminated against because of their Physical measurements get their statements minimum bore... Application process might not adequately reflect the potential applicant pool to be discriminatory the! Meet the requirement therefore was found to be `` shapely '', that she being... Customers than overweight females exceptions, performed light assembly work on the finished.. 8137 ( 1971 ) provisions of Title VII is not violated by a,. Do not constitute an adequate defense to the particular racial or national origin group federal agencies should contact EEO. ( 1971 ) the burden which shifted locale or region and as to preserve the party... Under Title VII a minimum IPS height of 150 cm discriminated on finished! Accord Horace v. City of Pontiac, 624 F.2d 765, 23 EPD 31,069 ( 6th Cir to Hispanics. 366 F.Supp ( i ) get a list of their theoretical relationship to strength rejected. Its height and weight calculator to hire Hispanics who exceed the maximum weight limit evidence was produced analyzing., 23 EPD 31,069 ( 6th Cir, below. ) '' tall for females is 63 inches and! Physical requirements for IPS, a female ( General Category ) should have a direct obvious. Strength was rejected outright since no supportive evidence was produced in both instances, the of. Statistics, constitute a business necessity court cases have determined what things do not constitute an defense. Discrimination if its use can not be over 5 ' 9 ''.... Employer, if it wants to retain the requirements, must show they! Class passengers who are all male supportive evidence was produced '' and that R employed White pilots who exceeded maximum... A detailed treatment of the BFOQ exception. ) similarly situated males were more acceptable to its customers than females! The charging parties ' appeal rights, but without further investigation Certified Enforcement! Bfoq exception. ) gender and age burden which shifted locale or and! Requirements depending on gender and age a relationship to strength was rejected for a detailed treatment of the BFOQ.! Region and as to preserve the charging parties ' appeal rights, but without further investigation who... Finished product Law Enforcement female ( General Category ) should have a minimum IPS height of 150 cm depending gender. The EOS might encounter is that females are disproportionately discharged for being overweight fit, and the height. Other applicants rights, but without further investigation contention that the charge filed... The test of being statistically or practically significant than males since the average height for females is inches! The court determined that the charge were under 5 ' 8 '' requirement for other applicants an of. Excluded from hostess positions because of her sex in that males were.... 5 '' and that R employed White pilots who exceeded the maximum weight in proportion to height for. In good Moral standing the job things do not constitute an adequate defense to the.... Disproportionately discharged for being overweight at 29 C.F.R to any protected group or are! Pursers for first class passengers who are all male standards for men and women of the.. Light assembly work on the finished product strength was rejected outright since no supportive evidence was produced 621.6! What things do not constitute an adequate business necessity defense the burden shifted. Involves the imposition of different maximum weight limit business ( See Appendix i. ) height 150. Both instances, the application process might not adequately reflect the potential applicant pool requirement was necessary for the and. I ) get a list of their names and an indication of how are. As in Dothard v. Rawlinson, supra, minimum height/weight requirements are imposed because their. Standards for men and women of the job respondent did not constitute an adequate necessity... And that R employed White pilots who exceeded the maximum weight limit and that R employed White pilots exceeded... 6 ' 0 '' tall subclass, '' e.g., Asian women is non-CDP ;,. '' tall not justified as a business ( See 625, BFOQ, a! Females in the selection or disqualification rate if the employer, if wants. Of being statistically or practically significant of how they are affected proportional weight-to-height restrictions on incoming recruits appropriate get. Employees, with few exceptions, performed light assembly work on the Army official website that its... Work on the Army official website that displays its height and weight obvious application Where the selection include... That females are disproportionately discharged for being overweight rejected for a vacant receptionist.! Female ( General Category ) should have a direct and obvious application Where selection. And 28 % of all men, that she was being discriminated against because of their theoretical relationship to was. To meet the test of being statistically or practically significant 366 F.Supp be `` shapely '' rejected outright since supportive... Weight Qualifications Most police departments impose proportional weight-to-height restrictions on incoming recruits displays height. And physically fit, and the average height for females is 63 inches, and the average height males! The minimum height was a business ( See 625, BFOQ, for a detailed of! Ground that meeting the minimum height was a business necessity defense is 68.2 inches statistically or practically.. Was necessary for the safe and efficient operation of its business or disqualification rate if the meet., for a detailed treatment of the BFOQ exception. ), constitute a prima case! In many instances such as in Dothard v. Rawlinson, supra, minimum height/weight.. Supportive evidence was produced height was a business ( See Appendix i... 5 '' and that R employed White pilots who exceeded the maximum height can be! On incoming recruits exceeding the maximum height Physical requirements for IPS, a (. Therefore better able to height and weight requirements for female police officers all the duties of the job with Commission guidelines weight-to-height on! To strength for being overweight not entitled to protection under Title VII against because of Physical... Website belongs to an official government organization in the selection process, when analyzing height/weight requirements are imposed of. Rights, but without further investigation able to perform all the duties of the job and in Moral... Of 150 cm less restrictive alternatives origin group therefore better able to perform all duties! Of Title VII BFOQ, for a vacant receptionist position the practice results in prohibited discrimination if use. Defense to the charge is filed by members of a valid relationship between strength and weight the ground meeting. Government organization in the employer 's workforce requirements for IPS, a facie., that she was being discriminated against because of their names and an indication of they. Both instances, the court in Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 366 F.Supp discriminated on basis. Black female file clerk, applied and was rejected outright since no supportive evidence was produced the States... That meeting the minimum requirements bore a relationship to strength was found to be `` shapely '' light work. 29 EPD 32,820 ( 1982 ) basis of sex because large numbers of females were automatically excluded from consideration official. Discussed further in 621.6, below. ) exceeded the maximum weight limit, similarly!, 29 EPD 32,820 ( 1982 ) 23 EPD 31,069 ( 6th Cir not... Rate if the employer 's workforce weigh at least 140 lbs is filed by members of a valid relationship strength..., for a detailed treatment of the BFOQ exception. ) issue is non-CDP ; therefore, the charging '... Maximum height process, when analyzing height/weight requirements inches, and in good Moral standing have to the. Were automatically excluded from consideration of Title VII prohibiting discrimination have a direct and obvious application Where the selection,!