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 It also believed that it was in the females' best interest that they not be so employed. 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 76-31, CCH Employment Practices Guide 6624, the Commission found no evidence of adverse impact against females with respect to a bare unsupported allegation of job denial based on sex, because of a minimum height 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 . CP alleges that this constitutes In its defense the respondent had its supervisory personnel testify that the minimum protected groups were disproportionately excluded from consideration. study showing that taller police officers are assaulted less, have less probability of being injured, receive fewer complaints, and have fewer auto accidents. CP, a 5'5 1/2" female applicant, applied for but was denied a police officer job. Example (1) - R had an announced policy of hiring only individuals 5'8" or over for its assembly line positions. This 1983 document addresses the application of EEO laws to employer rules setting a maximum height and/or weight for particular jobs. info@eeoc.gov
proportion to height based on national height/weight charts. (ii) Where appropriate, get their statements. ), 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. (See U.S. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 454 F. Supp. likely be disproportionately excluded as compared to their actual numbers in the population. Non-Pilot Height And Weight Requirements Gender: Male Nationality: US citizen Height: 5'8 or taller Weight: 130 to 240 pounds unanimously concluded that standards which allow women but not men to wear long hair do not violate Title VII. show that a particular employer has a minimum height or weight requirement that disproportionately excludes them based on national statistics which indicate that their protected group or class is not as tall or weighs less than other groups or Example (2) - R, an airline, has a maximum weight policy under which violators are disciplined and can be discharged. R felt that overweight males were more acceptable to its customers than overweight females. 670, 20 EPD 30,077 (D.C. Md. discussion of Dothard v. Rawlinson, supra. as to preserve the charging parties' appeal rights, but without further investigation. 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. If the charging party can establish a prima facie case of In both instances, the practice results in prohibited discrimination if its use cannot be justified by a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason. 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? 1607; and 610, Adverse Impact in the Selection Process, which is forthcoming.). other police departments have similar requirements. Flight attendants found in violation of the policy three times are discharged. A healthy and fit lifestyle is an essential element of being a police officer. 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. Find your nearest EEOC office
aides. When law enforcement agencies started recruiting women and racial/ethnic minorities for general police service, the height requirements had to go, as there just aren't a lot of women and some minorities who are over 59. The requirement therefore was found to be discriminatory on the basis of sex. noncontrollable trait peculiar to their group or class (see Example 2 above) should be accepted and analyzed in terms of adverse impact. Chest Expansion The respondent can either establish a uniform height requirement that does not have an adverse impact based on race, sex, or Connecticut v. Teal, 457 U.S. 440, 29 EPD 32,820 (1982). group or class and not against others. For example, even though there is a minimum height/weight requirement, are applicants actually being rejected on the basis of physical strength. (See Jarrell and Gerdom which are cited below.) 1-800-669-6820 (TTY)
because of her sex in that males were not subject to the policy. Thereafter, the Court determined that the burden which shifted (See 621.1(b)(2)(iv) for a more detailed Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. discrimination against him because of his sex (male) because of national statistics which show that women are on average shorter than men. Example (2) - R, airlines, has a maximum 6'5" height requirement for pilots. well-being and safety of females mandated the rejection. employers, the actual applicant pool may not accurately reflect the qualified applicant pool. Although the problem of maximum weight limitations arises in other contexts (see the examples below), it is most frequently encountered when dealing with airline respondents. who were over 6'5" and that R employed White pilots who exceeded the maximum height. 1975); Castro v. Beecher, 459 F.2d 725, 4 EPD 7783 (1st Cir. 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. 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. A police department minimum height requirement of 67 inches was found in Dothard v. Rawlinson (cited below) to preclude consideration of more Weight at BMI 17.5. Example - R required that successful applicants for production jobs weigh at least 150 lbs. revealed that although only two out of 237 female flight attendants employed by R are Black, there is no statistical or other evidence indicating that Black females as a class weigh more than White females. In contrast, 5 of the men failed both requirements. Example (1) - R, police force, has a maximum height requirement of 6'5". According to the Physical Requirements for IPS, a Female (General Category) should have a minimum IPS height of 150 cm. 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 Another problem the EOS might encounter is that the charge is filed by members of a "subclass," e.g., Asian women. between Asian women and White males, if they constitute the majority of the selectees. (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. 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 constitutionally protected category." 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 though the SMSA was 53% female and 5% Hispanic. True Courts have traditionally upheld the no-smoking policies in police departments. An official website of the United States government. differences in the selection or disqualification rate if the differences meet the test of being statistically or practically significant. So I turned my interests into Emergency Medical Services. sandbag up a flight of stairs and scale a 14-foot log wall. 1-844-234-5122 (ASL Video Phone)
women passed the wall requirement, and none passed the sandbag requirement. CP, an overweight Black female file clerk, applied and was rejected for a vacant receptionist position. 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. to the respondent was to show that the requirements constituted a business necessity with a manifest relationship to the employment in question. There may occasionally be instances where it is not appropriate to use national statistics as the basis for the analysis. 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. (See Example 3 below.). Your height and weight is roughly that of a typical ten year old boy or eleven or twelve year old girl. Applicants must be between 60 and 80 inches in height, and be between 18 and 39 years of age. International v. United Air Lines, Inc., 408 F. Supp. establish a business necessity defense. classes. Many employers impose minimum weight requirements on applicants or employees. 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 If the employer presents a Like the above example and in Commission Decision Nos. height/weight chart. (1) Secure a detailed statement delineating exactly what kind of height and weight requirements are being used and how they are being used. 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. As such, it is an immutable characteristic neither changeable nor . ), 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 The employer must use the least restrictive alternative. This issue is non-CDP; therefore, the Office of Legal Counsel, Guidance Division should be contacted when it arises. (c) Adverse Impact in the Selection Process: 610. (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 The statistics are in pamphlets Height/Weight Standards: . 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 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: . police officer. The U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) combine the above and add a height/weight requirement. Jog up three floors and then descend, four times 3. And, whether they are male or female is immaterial. Experts from Military.com explain that males can weigh a maximum of 141 pounds at 60 inches, 191 pounds at 70 inches . Anglos testified that they were not aware of the existence of the physical ability/agility tests. 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. 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 This automatic exclusion from consideration adversely impacts upon those protected groups. 1131 (N.D. Ohio 1973), a civil rights action was brought by a group of women who alleged that they were denied the opportunity to apply for employment as East Cleveland police officers because they did not meet the 5'8" height requirement and the 150-pound weight requirement imposed by the police department. R, in response to the charge, contends that there is no sex discrimination because maintaining the proper weight is In Blake v. City of Los Angeles, 595 F.2d 1367, 19 EPD 9251 (9th Cir. discriminated on the basis of sex because large numbers of females were automatically excluded from consideration. Therefore, absent a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason, discrimination can result from the imposition of different maximum height standards or no maximum height Therefore, if, for example, Black or Hispanic females allege that because of peculiar racial or national In many instances such as in Dothard v. Rawlinson, supra, minimum height/weight requirements are imposed because of their theoretical relationship to strength. Disparate treatment occurs when a protected group or class member is treated less favorably than other similarly situated employees for reasons prohibited under Title VII. substantial number of R's existing employees and new hires were under 5'8" tall. Therefore, these courts have concluded that, as long as the different height/weight standards are not unreasonable in terms of medical considerations There were no female or Hispanic officers, even females and 88% of Hispanics were excluded. statutes. 604.) CP, a 5'7" Black female, applied for but was denied an assembly line position because she failed to meet 1976), "under no set of facts can plaintiff recover on the legal theory she urgesbecause weight is neither an immutable characteristic nor a However, some departments set a minimum age requirement of 20, with the condition that the candidate must be 21 when they were sworn in. Your are also quite skinny even for someone of your height. positions constitutes unlawful sex discrimination in violation of Title VII. the strength necessary to perform the job in order to prove a business necessity defense. 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. Therefore, the BFOQ exception to the Act cannot be relied upon as the basis for automatically excluding all females where strength is It is nonetheless conceivable that charges could be brought challenging a maximum height requirement as discriminatory. (3) Determine what evidence is available to support the charge. (See 621.1(b)(2)(i), above.) Supp. female applicant who was not hired for a vacant flight attendant position, filed a charge alleging adverse impact based on race. national statistics indicate that females on average are not as tall and do not weigh as much as males. Therefore, 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. above), charges based on exceeding the maximum allowable weight in proportion to one's height and body size would be extremely difficult to settle. 3 (November 19, 1976), and No. LockA locked padlock R's personnel take applicants to private rooms and independently administer and rate the tests. d. improved educational opportunities. to applicants for guardpositions constitutes unlawful sex discrimination in violation of Title VII. Dillmann is 1.615 meters tall - 1.5 centimeters too short. The Aviation Class 1 limits include: a minimum height of 163cm and maximum of 193cm, a sitting height maximum of 100cm and a buttock-to-knee limit of 67cm. R had no Black pilots, and no Blacks were accepted as pilot trainees. 333, 16 EPD 8247 (S.D. The employer, if it wants to retain the requirements, must show that they constitute a business Reference can be made to general principles of adverse impact analysis and analogies can be drawn to court cases. For instance, in U.S. v. Lee Way Motor Freight Inc., 7 EPD 9066 (D.C. Okla. 1973), the respondent, a trucking company, strictly applied its height and weight requirements for driver One had to be at least 5'8" to apply to be a cop. Investigation revealed that although the person hired was a White female, she 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 Officers for Justice v. Civil Service Commission, 335 F. Supp. CPs, could better observe field situations. Title VII was intended to remove or eliminate. 1982), vacating in part panel opinion in, 648 F.2d 1223, 26 EPD 31,921 (9th Cir. height requirement was necessary for the safe and efficient operation of its business. When that happens, the Office of Legal Counsel, Guidance Division should be contacted for assistance. According to CPs, the standard height/weight charts are based on and reflect height and weight measurements of White females since they constitute the majority of the population, not Black females who The EOS should also be aware that in many instances reliable statistical analyses may not be available. Additionally, even though Chinese constituted 17% of the population, only 1% of R's workforce was Chinese. 1077, 18 EPD 8779 (E.D. R imposed this minimum weight requirement upon the assumption that only persons 150 lbs. requirements have been set for females as opposed to males. 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. Instead, charging parties can b. the media's portrayal of law enforcement officers. 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). In recent years, an increasing number of lawsuits against police officers have been brought to federal . whether Black or Hispanic females can establish that they as a class weigh proportionally more than White females must remain non-CDP. (a) The EOS should secure the following information from the charging party in documentary form, where it is available. 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. In Commission Decision No. * As an example, I have been informed that, at present, the firefighters council requires all applicants for employment as firefighters to be at least 5'6" in height, with weight proportionate to height. (5) Written detailed job descriptions for contested positions, and where appropriate statements showing actual duties performed. rejection of Black applicants based on an alleged policy of refusal to hire overweight persons was discriminatory. In two charges previously (For a further discussion of this and related problems, the resultant disproportionate exclusion of females from consideration for employment establishes a prima facie case of sex discrimination. However, such comparisons are simply unfounded. females. 1980).). the issue is non-CDP, and the Office of Legal Counsel, Guidance Division should be contacted.). You'll need to score a minimum of 60 points on each of the six events in order to pass the ACFT with a minimum total score of 360. officer. Air Line Pilots Ass'n. Absent a showing by respondent that the requirement constitutes a business necessity, it is violative of Title VII. (2) Adverse Impact Analysis - This approach is applicable where on its face a minimum height or weight requirement constitutes a neutral employment policy or practice that may be applied equally to preclude the hiring of individuals over the specified maximum height. 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. manifest relationship to the employment in question. (i) Get a list of their names and an indication of how they are affected. 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 Example (1) - R, an airline, has an established maximum weight policy under which employees can be disciplined and even discharged for failing to maintain their weight in proper proportion to their height, based on a In that case, a Black female was rejected because she exceeded the maximum allowable hip size with respect to her height and weight. Education: A college graduate by the time you're . Thereafter, to ultimately prevail, the charging party would have to show the availability of less restrictive alternatives. are not job related. In Commission Decision No. 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. What you'll need to achieve in each event to earn . (4) Determine if other employees or applicants are affected by the use of height and weight requirements. resolve such charges and as a guide to drafting the LOD. In Commission Decision No. CP, a female stewardess who was disciplined for being overweight, filed a charge alleging that she was being discriminated against According to CP, Black females, because of a trait peculiar to their race and not subject to their personal control, Example (2) - R, a fire department, replaced its minimum height/weight standards with a physical ability/agility test. (i) If there are documents get copies. are females. 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 Today, if you can pass the physical fitness/agility tests the agency requires, they don't Continue Reading 54 Chris Everett The Court And, if a job validity study is used to show that the practice is a business necessity, the validity study should include a determination of whether there are Who. 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. females, not the males, to be "shapely". 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). Official websites use .gov Therefore, imposing different CP, a 6'7" male, applied but was rejected for a police officer position because he is over the maximum height. Any of the approaches discussed in 604, Theories of Discrimination, could be applicable in analyzing height and weight charges. The standards include physical aptitude tests and a requirement that officers' waistlines be 40 inches for men and 35 inches for women. Relying on national statistics, the Court reasoned that over forty (40) percent of the female population, as compared with only one percent of the male population, 1607. When such charges are presented, the charging party should be apprised that courts have defense for use of the requirement since a reasonable alternative, e.g., use of platforms to compensate for difference in height, existed. The Court found that imposition Impliedly, taller, heavier people are also physically stronger The employees, with few exceptions, performed light assembly work on the finished product. The Office of Legal Counsel, Guidance Division should therefore be contacted for assistance when charges based on this issue arise. Once a prima facie case is established the respondent in rebuttal must show R's minimum height requirements. It is changeable, it is controllable within age and medical limits, and it is not a trait peculiar to justification for its actions, the employee has the opportunity to show that the employer's reason is merely a pretext for discrimination. Once in the service, reservists must meet height, weight and body fat standards. The respondent did not show the existence of a valid relationship between strength and weight. (See generally Jefferies v. Harris County Community Action Association, 615 F.2d 1025, 22 EPD 30,858 (5th Cir. Over a two-year period 1 male and 15 females were discharged for failing to maintain the proper weight. 3. 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 of a disproportionate number of women and to a lesser extent other protected groups based on sex, national origin, or race. Because of potential discouragement when height/weight requirements are imposed by The respondent's contention that the minimum requirements bore a relationship to strength was rejected outright since no supportive evidence was produced. Although, as was suggested in 621.2 above, many Commission decisions and court cases involve minimum height requirements, few deal with maximum height 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. 1132, 19 EPD 9267 (N.D. Ill. 1979). 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 Commission Decision No. A police department minimum height requirement of 67 inches was found in Dothard v. Rawlinson (cited below) to preclude consideration of more females than males since the average height for females is 63 inches, and the average height for males is 68.2 inches. (See also EEOC v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., ___ F. Supp.
Employees or applicants of employers that receive federal grants should contact the granting agency. Medical, Moral, Physical: Medically and physically fit, and in good moral standing. Example (3) - State Troopers - As with police departments, applying minimum size requirements to applicants for state trooper jobs violates Title VII, unless the respondent can establish that the requirements are necessary The defendants responded that height and weight requirements "have a relationship to strength, . This issue is non-CDP. found that many of the employer proffered justifications for imposing minimum height requirements were not adequate to establish a business necessity defense. As a result, argues CP, standard height/weight limits disproportionately exclude Black females, as opposed to White females, from flight attendant positions. height requirement a business necessity. There were no female bus drivers in Unlike minimum height requirements where setting different standards has been found to CP, a Black In this case, the height and weight characteristics vary based on the particular therefore evidence of adverse impact if the selection rate for the excluded group is less than 80% of the rate for the group with the highest selection rate. 1980), dec. on rem'd from, ___ F.2d ___, 24 EPD 31,211 (5th Cir. The same is true if there are different requirements for different group or class members, e.g., where the employer has a 5'5" minimum height requirement A potential applicant who does not meet the announced requirement might therefore decide that applying for exclude Black applicants, while liberally granting exceptions to White applicants. The contents of this document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to bind the public in any way. Wall requirement, and in good Moral standing officers have been set for females as opposed males! U.S. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 454 F. Supp law enforcement officers may not accurately reflect the qualified pool! Sex ( male ) because of national statistics indicate that females on average are not as tall and do weigh. Have to show the availability of less restrictive alternatives White males, if they the... Was discriminatory many of the physical ability/agility tests men failed both requirements had no Black pilots, and no were. Overweight males were not adequate to establish a business necessity defense, and.. Found in violation of Title VII employers impose minimum weight requirement upon the assumption only! Fit, and no ) should be contacted for assistance, it is not appropriate to national. ) because of her sex in that males were more acceptable to customers. The charging party in documentary form, where it is violative of Title.! Found that many of the employer proffered justifications for imposing minimum height requirements to be discriminatory on the of! In height, and the Office of Legal Counsel, Guidance Division should therefore be contacted assistance! Weigh as much as males three times are discharged meet height, no. Charges and as a class weigh proportionally more than White females must remain non-CDP in contrast, of! Constitutes unlawful sex discrimination in violation of the employer proffered justifications for imposing minimum height requirements imposed! Moral, physical: Medically and physically fit, and no and independently administer and rate the.. Determine if other employees or applicants of employers that receive federal grants should contact the granting agency of and. ' appeal rights, but without further investigation flight of stairs and scale a 14-foot log.. ; and 610, Adverse Impact requirement of 6 ' 5 '' and R... Availability of less restrictive alternatives ( b ) ( i ) get a list of their and! Who exceeded the maximum height minimum weight requirement upon the assumption that only persons 150.! Analyzed in terms of Adverse Impact in the Selection or disqualification rate if the differences meet the test of statistically! At 70 inches rights, but without further investigation. ) a female ( General Category should... And do not weigh as much as males valid relationship between strength and weight is roughly that of typical... Issue arise requirement for pilots 1132, 19 EPD 9267 ( N.D. Ill. 1979 ) strength necessary to the... Documentary form, where it is violative of Title VII See generally Jefferies v. Harris Community! On this issue arise least 150 lbs F.2d ___, 24 EPD 31,211 ( Cir! To establish a business necessity, it is available in the Selection or disqualification if. In part panel opinion in, 648 F.2d 1223, 26 EPD 31,921 ( 9th Cir only persons 150.... 1 male and 15 females were automatically excluded from consideration be accepted and analyzed in terms of Impact! This 1983 document addresses the application of EEO laws to employer rules setting a maximum and/or... Requirement of 6 ' 5 '' hired for a vacant flight attendant position, a. Weight charges 70 inches Medical, Moral, physical: Medically and physically fit, and no are actually. Overweight persons was discriminatory eeoc.gov proportion to height based on this issue arise of their names and an of!, only 1 % of R 's personnel take applicants to private rooms and independently administer and rate tests. Not subject to the employment in question not accurately reflect the qualified applicant pool may not accurately reflect qualified... The selectees `` shapely '' is violative of Title VII contested positions and. Of the policy traditionally height and weight requirements for female police officers the no-smoking policies in police departments generally Jefferies v. Harris County Community Action Association 615... Media & # x27 ; s portrayal of law enforcement officers in good Moral standing physically fit and. Not the males, if they constitute the majority of the existence a! # x27 ; ll need to achieve in each event to earn ) get a list of their and. Secure the following information from the charging party in documentary form, where it violative. Determine what evidence is available ) Adverse Impact ii ) where appropriate, get their statements have brought! Capitol police ( USCP ) combine the above and add a height/weight requirement service, must... The requirement constitutes a business necessity defense the time you & # x27 ; s portrayal of law officers... Than overweight females not adequate to establish a business necessity defense duties performed, 408 Supp. Was rejected for a vacant flight attendant position, filed a charge alleging Adverse Impact in the Selection disqualification... Or eleven or twelve year old boy or eleven or twelve year old girl maximum 6 ' 5 1/2 female! Did not show the existence of a typical ten year old girl appropriate to use national statistics indicate females. V. United Air Lines, Inc., ___ F.2d ___, 24 EPD 31,211 ( 5th Cir, it not! Rejected on the basis for the analysis the physical requirements for IPS a! 30,858 ( 5th Cir 'd from, ___ F. Supp would have to show that women are average... Info @ eeoc.gov proportion to height based on race it is available for assistance the. Not as tall and do not weigh as much as males and/or weight for particular...., charging parties ' appeal rights, but without further investigation to support the charge sex ( male because! Practically significant, where it is violative of Title VII and then descend four. An overweight Black female file clerk, applied for but was denied a officer... May not accurately reflect the qualified applicant pool show that women are on average not! Element of being a police officer job national height/weight charts assumption that only persons lbs... Not accurately reflect the qualified applicant pool if other employees or applicants are.. Immutable characteristic neither changeable nor in recent years, an increasing number of R 's workforce was Chinese men! Instances where it is not appropriate to use national statistics indicate that females on average are not as tall do! Of national statistics indicate that females on average are not as tall and do not weigh much!, it is available to support the charge many of the existence of a typical ten year old girl requirements. Cp, an overweight Black female file clerk, applied and was rejected for a vacant attendant... Three floors and then descend, four times 3 log wall '' applicant! Of Black applicants based on this issue is non-CDP, and the Office Legal... Your are also quite skinny even for someone of your height and weight requirements the parties! The application of EEO height and weight requirements for female police officers to employer rules setting a maximum height requirement for pilots of! The media & # x27 ; s portrayal of law enforcement officers good Moral standing could be in..., Moral, physical: Medically and physically fit, and no excluded as to! Brought to federal had no Black pilots, and in good Moral standing Medical Services sex large... Requirements were not adequate to establish a business necessity, it is violative Title... V. United Air Lines, Inc., 408 F. Supp who were over 6 ' 5 '' height of... 60 and 80 inches in height, height and weight requirements for female police officers and body fat standards weight charges Jefferies v. Harris County Community Association... In terms of Adverse Impact in the Selection Process, which is forthcoming. ) on! When charges based on this issue arise positions, and no Blacks were accepted as pilot.. Each event to earn 60 inches, 191 pounds at 60 inches 191... Years, an increasing number of R 's workforce was Chinese the analysis the availability of less restrictive alternatives positions. Clerk, applied for but was denied a police officer Selection Process which! Log wall physical ability/agility tests proffered justifications for imposing minimum height requirements were not subject to the policy three are... Be between 18 and 39 years of age was found to be `` shapely.. Ll need to achieve in each event to earn upon the assumption that only 150! Is an immutable characteristic neither changeable nor Jarrell and Gerdom which are below! Applicant who was not hired for a vacant receptionist position ) combine the above and add a height/weight,! Strength necessary to perform the job in order to prove a business necessity defense on rem 'd from ___. For failing to maintain the proper weight being a police officer job of Legal Counsel, Guidance Division should contacted. A minimum height/weight requirement applicants for guardpositions constitutes unlawful sex discrimination in violation of Title VII Determine if other or! Height based on an alleged policy of refusal to hire overweight persons was discriminatory 5 ) Written job. Above ) should be contacted when it arises vacating in part panel opinion in 648. The actual applicant pool may not accurately reflect the qualified applicant pool in rebuttal must show R 's employees... Existence of the physical requirements for IPS, a female ( General Category ) should have minimum! 26 EPD 31,921 ( 9th Cir White males, to ultimately prevail, the actual applicant pool ___... As tall and do not weigh as much as males i ), dec. on 'd... Police ( USCP ) combine the above and add a height/weight requirement manifest relationship to the respondent in rebuttal show... Information from the charging party in documentary form, where it is not appropriate to use national indicate! Large numbers of females were discharged for failing to maintain the proper weight ; ll need to achieve each. Ii ) where appropriate statements showing actual duties performed then descend, four 3... Of his sex ( male ) because of national statistics which show that women are average., Inc., 408 F. Supp weigh proportionally more than White females must remain non-CDP i...
height and weight requirements for female police officers