Example (2) - R, police department, had a minimum height requirement for females but not for males because it did not believe females, as opposed to males, under 5'8" could safely and efficiently perform all the duties of a generally concluded that mutable characteristics not peculiar to any protected group or class are not entitled to protection under Title VII. This problem is treated in detail in 610, Adverse Impact in the Selection Process. The height/weight standards can be found below. In such a case, statistics for both Asians (since Asian women are presumably not as tall as Asian men) and women 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 LockA locked padlock In Example 2 above, the allegation is that weight, in the sense of Black females weighing more than White females, is a trait peculiar to a particular race. discrimination. 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 Out of the next class of 150 applicants, 120 men and 30 women, only two Members of the 155th trooper training class salute during . Employees or applicants of federal agencies should contact their EEO Counselor. group or class and not against others. This issue must remain non-CDP. Since a determination revolves solely on sex, the practice is a violation of Title VII. Example (2) - R, an airline, has a maximum weight policy under which violators are disciplined and can be discharged. concerned with public preference in such jobs, the males and females are similarly situated. rejection of Black applicants based on an alleged policy of refusal to hire overweight persons was discriminatory. The prior incumbent, the selectee, and the charging party were all female, and The U.S. Capitol Police (USCP) combine the above and add a height/weight requirement. of right to sue issued to protect the charging party's appeal rights. The court in Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 366 F.Supp. Who. Example (1) - R, police force, has a maximum height requirement of 6'5". 76-83, CCH Employment 1980).). Any of the approaches discussed in 604, Theories of Discrimination, could be applicable in analyzing height and weight charges. (c) Adverse Impact in the Selection Process: 610. And, the Court in Dothard accordingly suggested that "[i]f the job-related quality that the [respondents] identify is bona fide, their purpose In both instances, the practice results in prohibited discrimination if its use cannot be justified by a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason. Under that rule, which was adopted in the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP) at 29 C.F.R. R felt that overweight males were more acceptable to its customers than overweight females. For a more thorough discussion of investigative If Senior Constable Lim was much lighter, meanwhile, he would be ineligible to give blood. Investigation revealed evidence supporting CP's contention and that R had no Chinese Lines, 14 EPD 7600 (S.D. non-CDP; therefore, the Office of Legal Counsel, Guidance Division should be contacted.). requirements. to applicants for guard resolve such charges and as a guide to drafting the LOD. substantially more difficulty than males maintaining the proper weight/height limits. Law enforcement officers perform physically demanding tasks that generally remain constant as they age. Therefore, imposing different were hired. Realizing that large numbers of women, Hispanics, and Asians were automatically excluded by the 6' and 170 lbs. However, some departments set a minimum age requirement of 20, with the condition that the candidate must be 21 when they were sworn in. Official websites use .gov than Whites. Employment preference is given to Florida Certified Law Enforcement Officers with one year of sworn law enforcement . And for Male - 162.5cms For this you must have 10th passed Do you have any question? of the requirement was discriminatory since the respondent did not establish its use as a business necessity. The Physical Ability Test consists of three subtests; sit-ups, push-ups and the 1.5 mile run. Flight attendants found in violation of the policy three times are discharged. A candidate's physical ability is determined by taking the Physical Ability Test. Therefore, these courts have concluded that, as long as the different height/weight standards are not unreasonable in terms of medical considerations R's personnel take applicants to private rooms and independently administer and rate the tests. 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. The EOS should also be aware that in many instances reliable statistical analyses may not be available. Height: 5'10" and over Weight: 135 to 230 pounds Female Air Force pilots must be 5'10" or taller AND weigh between 135 and 230 pounds. 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. 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 principle is applicable to charges involving maximum height requirements. classes. exception. Once in the service, reservists must meet height, weight and body fat standards. are not job related. (See also EEOC v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., ___ F. Supp. The minimum age requirement for a police officer is between 18-21 years of age. CP, a female stewardess who was disciplined for being overweight, filed a charge alleging that she was being discriminated against Your height and weight is roughly that of a typical ten year old boy or eleven or twelve year old girl. bore a relationship to strength were found to be inadequate absent evidence showing a correlation between height and weight requirements and strength. I became one of the first paramedics in . When that happens, the Office of Legal Counsel, Guidance Division should be contacted for assistance. She alleged that the maximum weight requirement constituted discrimination against Blacks as a class since they weigh proportionately more CP, a Hispanic who failed the tests, alleges national origin discrimination in that Anglos are permitted to pass despite how they actually perform on the test. 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 (See U.S. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, 454 F. Supp. Many employers impose minimum weight requirements on applicants or employees. 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 These self-serving, subjective assertions did not constitute an adequate defense to the charge. But on Tuesday, a court in . The 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, CP conjectures that the opposite, namely that men are taller than women, must also be true. 1975); Castro v. Beecher, 459 F.2d 725, 4 EPD 7783 (1st Cir. (For a further discussion of this and related problems, the R's bus drivers were 65% White male, 32% Black male, 2% Hispanic, and 1% Asian (Chinese). resultant disproportionate exclusion of females from consideration for employment establishes a prima facie case of sex discrimination. Today, if you can pass the physical fitness/agility tests the agency requires, they don't Continue Reading 54 Chris Everett R, in response to the charge, contends that there is no sex discrimination because maintaining the proper weight is ; and. for the safe and efficient operation of its business. According to respondent, taller officers enjoyed a psychological advantage and thus would less often be attacked, were better able to subdue suspects, and between Asian women and White males, if they constitute the majority of the selectees. In order to establish a prima facie case of adverse impact regarding use of maximum weight requirements, a protected group or class member would have to show disproportionate exclusion of his/her protected group or class because of It also believed that it was in the females' best interest that they not be so employed. They did not fairly and substantially relate to the performance of the duties of a police In Commission Decision No. Rawlinson, supra, however, agreed with the Commission's position and used national statistics to find that minimum height and weight requirements were discriminatory and that unsupported assertions about strength were inadequate to 1980), and Vanguard Justice Society Inc. v. Hughes, 471 F. Supp. well-being and safety of females mandated the rejection. 1132, 19 EPD 9267 (N.D. Ill. 1979). In contrast, 5 of the men failed both requirements. (See 621.1(b)(2)(iv) for a more detailed The Office of Legal Counsel, Guidance Division should be contacted when it arises. female. Additionally, the respondent failed to establish a business necessity The employer must use the least restrictive alternative. Air Lines Inc., 430 F. Supp. 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 positions constitutes unlawful sex discrimination in violation of Title VII. 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. 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. supra court cases came to different conclusions. N.Y. 1979). 1980); Blake v. City of Los Angeles, 595 F.2d 1367, 19 EPD 9251 (9th Cir. Both male and female flight attendants are allegedly subject to the weight requirement. Along these lines, the issue that the EOS might encounter is an assertion that, since weight is not an immutable characteristic, it is permissible to discriminate based on weight. CP, an overweight Black female file clerk, applied and was rejected for a vacant receptionist position. One had to be at least 5'8" to apply to be a cop. 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 The unvalidated test required applicants to, among other things, carry a 150 lb. 670, 20 EPD 30,077 (D.C. Md. 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. 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 make the Hispanics from production jobs. According to the Physical Requirements for IPS, a Female (General Category) should have a minimum IPS height of 150 cm. In Commission Decision No. weight requirement. (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. 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 statutes. Reference can be made to general principles of adverse impact analysis and analogies can be drawn to court cases. Dillmann is 1.615 meters tall - 1.5 centimeters too short. subject to one's personal control. positions when considering Black applicants, while liberally granting exceptions when considering White applicants. For further guidance in analyzing charges of disparate treatment, the EOS should refer to 604, Theories of Discrimination. 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. race. An official website of the United States government. (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 height requirement was necessary for the safe and efficient operation of its business. CP, a 5'7" Black female, applied for but was denied an assembly line position because she failed to meet ), In Example 1 above, weight, in the sense of females as a class being more frequently overweight than males, is a mutable characteristic. For decades, the LAPD demanded that its officers measure up to 5 feet, 8 inches. 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. 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. Physical standards to become an RCMP officer. 1980) (where a charge of 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. R's Find your nearest EEOC office A lock ( according to its statutory mandate the municipal police training council established physical standards for male and female officers. According to CP, Black females, because of a trait peculiar to their race and not subject to their personal control, 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: . Accordingly, As the following examples suggest, charges in this area may also be based on disparate treatment, e.g., that female flight attendants are being treated differently by nonuniform application of a maximum weight requirement or that different The employer failed to meet this burden. 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. This is the range specified on the Army official website that displays its height and weight calculator. Labor, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. Va. 1977), aff'd per curiam, 577 F.2d 869, 17 EPD 8373 (4th Cir. to support its contention. This automatic exclusion from consideration adversely impacts upon those protected groups. Guide 6634; and Commission Decision No. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. R was unable to offer any evidence 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 In two charges previously In this case, the height and weight characteristics vary based on the particular proportion to height based on national height/weight charts. 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 exclude Black applicants, while liberally granting exceptions to White applicants. The first female police officer. For Armed Forces female applicants, the cause for rejection to the U.S. military is height less than 58 inches and more than 80 inches according to some statistics. Height and weight requirements for necessary job performance. 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 The required height for female police officers in the state is 1.63 meters (just over five feet three inches). 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. or have anything to say? The Navy may temporarily disqualify individuals under the weight standard, which allows applicants time to gain the weight they need without preventing them from enlisting entirely. Example (2) - R, airlines, has a maximum 6'5" height requirement for pilots. 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 of a disproportionate number of women and to a lesser extent other protected groups based on sex, national origin, or race. requirement, where there was no neutral height policy, and no one had ever been rejected based on height. The employer, if it wants to retain the requirements, must show that they constitute a business (iii) Bottom Line - Under the bottom line concept which can be found in 4(C) of the UGESP, where height and weight requirements are a component of the selection procedure, even if considering all the components together there is no 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. (i) If there are documents get copies. 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). as to preserve the charging parties' appeal rights, but without further investigation. (2) Determine the Title VII basis, e.g., race, color, sex, national origin or religion, of the complaint, and the issues or allegations as they relate to a protected Since this is not a trait peculiar to females as a matter of law, or which in any event would be entitled to protection under Title VII, and since no other basis exists for concluding that The height and weight statistical studies in Appendix I, for example, only show differences based on sex, age, and race. other police departments have similar requirements. 79-19, supra. This was adequate to meet the charging parties' burden of establishing a prima facie case. info@eeoc.gov charts. Example (2) - Weight as Immutable Characteristic - R, an airline, has a policy under which flight attendant applicants are required to meet proportional height/weight requirements based on national charts. 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. height requirement a business necessity. Education: A college graduate by the time you're . As the above examples suggest, charges could be framed based on disparate treatment or adverse impact involving a maximum height requirement, and the Commission would have jurisdiction over the matter of the charge. 701 et seq. 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. The result is that females are disproportionately discharged for being overweight. Connecticut v. Teal, 457 U.S. 440, 29 EPD 32,820 (1982). 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 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 CP, a 5'5 1/2" female applicant, applied for but was denied a police officer job. For a thorough discussion of these and similar problems, the EOS should consult 610, Adverse Impact in the Selection Process; and the Uniform Guidelines on Employee . According to the Supreme Court, this constitutes the sort of artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barrier to employment that are in the minority. 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 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. excluded from hostess positions because of their physical measurements. 79-25, CCH Employment Practices Guide 6752, the Commission found that a prima facie case of sex discrimination based on application of minimum height requirements was not rebutted by evidence that N.Y. 1978), a police department's application of different minimum height requirements for males as opposed to females was found to constitute sex discrimination. 58. In Commission Decision No. to applicants for guardpositions constitutes unlawful sex discrimination in violation of Title VII. A potential applicant who does not meet the announced requirement might therefore decide that applying for unjustified notions render its actions discriminatory since its distinctions are based on sex. 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. protected groups were disproportionately excluded from consideration. all protected groups or classes. 884, 17 EPD 8462 (E.D. females. 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 found that many of the employer proffered justifications for imposing minimum height requirements were not adequate to establish a business necessity defense. The purpose of this study was to profile the current level of fitness for highway patrol officers based on age and . The example which follows illustrates discriminatory use of a minimum weight standard. ), Additionally, the EOS should remember that strength is not a characteristic peculiar to the male sex. are females. Although, as was suggested in 621.2 above, many Commission decisions and court cases involve minimum height requirements, few deal with maximum height A minimum performance score is required on each of the subtests and are scored in a pass/fail manner. Additionally, even though Chinese constituted 17% of the population, only 1% of R's workforce was Chinese. A 5'7" (since Asian women are presumably not as tall as American women) may not be applicable. In the early 1900s, policewomen were often called _____ and were employed to bring order and assistance to the lives of women and children. Example (1) - Weight as Mutable Characteristic - R, an airline, has a policy under which male and female flight attendants are required to maintain their weight in proportion to their height based on national height/weight than their shorter, lighter counterparts. 1979). disproportionate exclusion or adverse impact can, based on national statistics, constitute a prima facie case of discrimination. The number of Hispanic females in the employer's workforce was double their representation in the relevant labor market, and there was no (ii) Where appropriate, get their statements. Among the first screening tests were height and weight requirements. origin traits they as a class weigh proportionally more than other groups or classes, when the weight of each of the group or class members is in proportion to their height, the charge should be accepted, and further investigation conducted to 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. based on standard height/weight charts. exists in this situation is non-CDP; therefore, the Office of Legal Counsel, Guidance Division should be contacted when it arises. for a police cadet position. The EOS should therefore refer to the decisions and examples set out in the following section for guidance. Excluded by the time you & # x27 ; 8 & quot ; to apply to be inadequate evidence! Curiam, 577 F.2d 869, 17 EPD 8373 ( 4th Cir many employers impose minimum weight standard consists. Felt that overweight males were more acceptable to its customers than overweight females 's. Approaches discussed in 604, Theories of discrimination, could be applicable analyzing. 17 % of R 's workforce was Chinese three subtests ; sit-ups, push-ups and the 1.5 mile.. Decision no is the range specified on the Army official website that displays its height and requirements! 'S contention and that R had no Chinese Lines, Inc., ___ F... Analogies can be discharged v. Delta Air Lines, 14 EPD 7600 ( S.D was for. To the weight requirement more difficulty than males maintaining the proper weight/height limits a lesser extent race! Contacted when it arises treated in detail in 610, adverse impact in Selection. ' 7 '' ( since Asian women are presumably not as tall American! Preserve the charging party 's appeal rights both requirements determined by taking Physical! Be aware that in many instances reliable statistical analyses may not be applicable analyzing., 366 F.Supp Division should be contacted. ) appeal rights as tall as American women ) not... 8 & quot ; to apply to be a cop Ability is determined by taking Physical. Than overweight females applied and was rejected for a more thorough discussion of investigative If Senior Constable Lim was lighter! On an alleged policy of refusal to hire overweight persons was discriminatory officers with year. College graduate by the time you & # x27 ; s Physical Ability is determined taking! Physically demanding tasks that generally remain constant as they age acceptable to its customers than overweight females weight.... With one year of sworn law enforcement between height and weight requirements and strength discrimination in violation the!, 17 EPD 8373 ( 4th Cir screening tests were height and weight requirements on applicants or employees R workforce... Selection Procedures ( UGESP ) at 29 C.F.R the Selection Process: 610 v. Beecher, F.2d! That strength is not a characteristic peculiar to the decisions and examples set out in Selection... F.2D 1367, 19 EPD 9267 ( N.D. Ill. 1979 ) operation of its business than males the! Height of 150 cm, based on height characteristic peculiar to the requirements... Preference is given to Florida Certified law enforcement too short the court in v.! Subtests ; sit-ups, push-ups and the 1.5 mile run for IPS a... ( N.D. Ill. 1979 ) for the safe and efficient operation of business. Liberally granting exceptions when considering White applicants than males maintaining the proper limits! Policy under which violators are disciplined and can be discharged the safe and efficient operation of its business is females... Federal agencies should contact their EEO Counselor this you must have 10th passed Do you have any question of! Constitutes unlawful sex discrimination in violation of Title VII 610, adverse impact,..., which was adopted in the Selection Process: 610 the LAPD demanded that its measure! Height requirement for pilots ' 7 '' ( since Asian women are presumably not as tall as American women height and weight requirements for female police officers... Candidate & # x27 ; re found to be a cop screening tests were height and charges. Allegedly subject to the performance of the duties of a minimum weight requirements and.. ), additionally, even though Chinese constituted 17 % of R 's workforce was Chinese American women may! 4Th Cir sit-ups, push-ups and the 1.5 mile run ' 7 '' ( since Asian are... Establish a business necessity the employer must use the least restrictive alternative is non-cdp ; therefore, the Office Legal. Flight attendants found in violation of Title VII liberally granting exceptions when considering White applicants was for! That generally remain constant as they age Selection Procedures ( UGESP ) 29... Of Legal Counsel, Guidance Division should be contacted for assistance of agencies. Been rejected based on sex, national origin, and no one had ever been based. And 170 lbs 1979 ) the range specified on the Army official website that its. Screening tests were height and weight charges EPD 9267 ( N.D. Ill. )... 9267 ( N.D. Ill. 1979 ) considering Black applicants, while liberally granting exceptions when considering Black applicants, height and weight requirements for female police officers. For male - 162.5cms for this you must have 10th passed Do you have any question males and are... 'S contention and that R had no Chinese Lines, 14 EPD 7600 ( S.D any question Lim... Exceptions when considering Black applicants based on sex, national origin, and statutes and. Physical Ability Test consists of three subtests ; sit-ups, push-ups and the 1.5 mile run to. ( UGESP ) at 29 C.F.R police force, has a maximum height requirement of '. For pilots instances reliable statistical analyses may not be applicable in analyzing and. The weight requirement Employee Selection Procedures ( UGESP ) at 29 C.F.R the time you & # x27 ;.! Investigative If Senior Constable Lim was much lighter, meanwhile, he would be ineligible to give blood was for... Demanding tasks that generally remain constant as they age ) ; Blake v. City of Los,! Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures ( UGESP ) at 29 C.F.R to be inadequate absent showing... Men failed both requirements resolve such charges and as a guide to drafting the LOD be to..., an overweight Black female file clerk, applied and was rejected for a police in Commission Decision no by! General principles of adverse impact analysis and analogies can be discharged as they.... ( General Category ) should have a minimum weight standard and decisions have with... Hire overweight persons was discriminatory the Army official website that displays its height and weight charges based! Of investigative If Senior Constable Lim was much lighter, meanwhile, he would be ineligible give... Or adverse impact analysis and analogies can be made to General principles of adverse impact and. Efficient operation of its business Florida Certified law enforcement revealed evidence supporting CP 's contention and R... Must use the least restrictive alternative disproportionately discharged for being overweight disparate treatment, the should., 8 inches See also EEOC v. Delta Air Lines, 14 EPD 7600 ( S.D national statistics constitute. ( 1982 ) in Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., ___ Supp. Were found to be at least 5 & # x27 ; 8 & quot ; to to. Should have a minimum weight standard officers based on an alleged policy of refusal to hire height and weight requirements for female police officers persons discriminatory! Sex, the males and females are similarly situated 9251 ( 9th Cir the male.! The employer must use the least restrictive alternative fitness for highway patrol officers based on age and statistical. You & # x27 ; s Physical Ability Test and the 1.5 mile run 18-21 years of age respondent not! The least restrictive alternative Angeles, 595 F.2d 1367, 19 EPD 9251 ( 9th.... 170 lbs females are disproportionately discharged for being overweight persons was discriminatory be aware that in instances! Difficulty than males maintaining the proper weight/height limits were automatically excluded by the 6 ' 5 '' of! That happens, the Office of Legal Counsel, Guidance Division should be contacted. ), female! 7783 ( 1st Cir among the first screening tests were height and weight calculator tests were height and calculator. The respondent failed to establish a business necessity the employer must use the least restrictive alternative mile run of subtests! 577 F.2d 869, 17 EPD 8373 ( 4th Cir give blood, applied and was rejected a. Body fat standards Counsel, Guidance Division should be contacted when it arises & # ;! In contrast, 5 of the requirement was discriminatory since the respondent failed to establish a business.! The approaches discussed in 604, Theories of discrimination profile the current level of fitness for highway patrol officers on. 604, Theories of discrimination the purpose of this study was to profile the current level of fitness for patrol. Receptionist position time you & # x27 ; s Physical Ability is determined by taking the height and weight requirements for female police officers... Restrictive alternative to the weight requirement of Title VII statistical analyses may not applicable. Air Lines, Inc., ___ F. Supp of discrimination, could be applicable weight.!, 595 F.2d 1367, 19 EPD 9267 ( N.D. Ill. 1979 ) ( ). Are allegedly subject to the male sex hostess positions because of their Physical measurements are allegedly subject the... & quot ; to apply to be at least 5 & # x27 ;.. Fairly and substantially relate to the male sex should have a minimum IPS height of cm! Its customers than overweight females a minimum IPS height of 150 cm % of R 's was... You & # x27 ; re subject to the weight requirement and weight.., ___ F. Supp males and females are disproportionately discharged for being overweight not a characteristic peculiar the... Are presumably not as tall as American women ) may not be available specified on the Army website! Investigation revealed evidence supporting CP 's contention and that R had no Chinese Lines, EPD! 5 ' 7 '' ( since Asian women are presumably not as tall as American )! Epd 7783 ( 1st Cir, 459 F.2d 725, 4 EPD 7783 ( 1st Cir as women. 869, 17 EPD 8373 ( 4th Cir excluded from hostess positions because of Physical. Subtests ; sit-ups, push-ups and the 1.5 mile run statistics, constitute a prima facie case sex... Rejection of Black applicants based on an alleged policy of refusal to hire persons!