In this case, the height and weight characteristics vary based on the particular 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. For instance, if the charging party is from a particular Indian tribe located almost exclusively in a particular There may occasionally be instances where it is not appropriate to use national statistics as the basis for the analysis. 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 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. 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. Impact, instead of actual applicant flow data. 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 A potential applicant who does not meet the announced requirement might therefore decide that applying for Self-recognized inability to meet the requirement, the application process might not adequately reflect the potential applicant pool. 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 (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 womenĪnd minorities have been disproportionately excluded. This automatic exclusion from consideration adversely impacts upon those protected groups. The direct and obvious effect of minimum height or weight requirements is, as stated in § 621.1(a) above, to disproportionately exclude significant numbers of women, Hispanics, and certain Asians fromĬonsideration for employment. An adverse impact analysis does not require the proving of intent, but rather it focuses on the effects In contrast to a disparate treatment analysis, it does not necessarily indicate an intent to discriminate. (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 toĪll protected groups or classes. Discrimination results from nonuniform application of the requirements based on the applicant's race. Positions when considering Black applicants, while liberally granting exceptions when considering White applicants. 1973), the respondent, a trucking company, strictly applied its height and weight requirements for driver Lee Way Motor Freight Inc., 7 EPD ¶ 9066 (D.C. (1) Disparate Treatment Analysis - The disparate treatment analysis is typically applicable where the respondent has a height or weight requirement, but it is only enforced against one protected With discrimination based on sex, national origin, and to a lesser extent, race. Decided cases and decisions have dealt with both disparate treatment and adverse impact analyses, and (b) Analyzing Height and Weight Charges -Īny of the approaches discussed in § 604, Theories of Discrimination, could be applicable in analyzing height and weight charges. Title VII was intended to remove or eliminate. According to the Supreme Court, this constitutes the sort of artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barrier to employment that Rawlinson (cited below) to preclude consideration of moreįemales than males since the average height for females is 63 inches, and the average height for males is 68.2 inches. A police department minimum height requirement of 67 inches was found in Dothard v. Likely be disproportionately excluded as compared to their actual numbers in the population. The result is that, if meeting a minimum height or weight limit is a requirement for employment, these protected group members will most National statistics indicate that females on average are not as tall and do not weigh as much as males. The general provisions of Title VII prohibiting discrimination have a direct and obvious application where the selection criteria include height or weight requirements. HEIGHT AND WEIGHT REQUIREMENTS 621.1 Introduction (b) Physical Strength and Size Requirements (d) Different Maximum Weight, Same Height and Standard ChartsĦ21.6 Physical Strength and Ability or Agility
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |