To buttress this argument, they introduced statistics showing that on a national basis, while only 3% of Black or White males were excluded by the 5'6" requirement, 87% of (ii) Four-Fifths Rule - It may not be appropriate in many instances to use the 4/5ths or 80% rule, which is a general rule of thumb or guide for determining whether there is evidence of adverse This problem is treated in detail in 610, Adverse Impact in the Selection Process. 76-83, CCH Employment with discrimination based on sex, national origin, and to a lesser extent, race. Fact situations may eventually be presented that must be addressed. Minimum height requirements can also result in disparate treatment of protected group or class members if the minimum requirements are not uniformly applied, e.g., where the employer applies a minimum 5'8" height requirement strictly to 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. Lines, 14 EPD 7600 (S.D. In Commission Decision No. Black females as a class weigh more than White females, such data was simply not available. 71-1418, CCH EEOC Decisions (1973) 6223. The according to its statutory mandate the municipal police training council established physical standards for male and female officers. that as a result, a maximum height requirement disproportionately excludes them from employment. (1) Secure a detailed statement delineating exactly what kind of height and weight requirements are being used and how they are being used. Unlike minimum height requirements where setting different standards has been found to females. Investigation revealed that although the person hired was a White female, she Example (1) - R had an announced policy of hiring only individuals 5'8" or over for its assembly line positions. In Commission Decision No. 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. 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. R had no Black pilots, and no Blacks were accepted as pilot trainees. The unvalidated test required applicants to, among other things, carry a 150 lb. The employees, with few exceptions, performed light assembly work on the finished product. requirement. Applicant flow data showing that large numbers of Hispanic applicants were hired was not determinative since many others were probably rejected because of the standard. 5'7 1/3". (See 621.1(b)(2)(i), above.) Although, as was suggested in 621.2 above, many Commission decisions and court cases involve minimum height requirements, few deal with maximum height manifest relationship to the employment in question. For a determination of whether the 4/5ths or 80% rule test, as opposed to the test of statistical or practical significance, can be used when dealing with height/weight requirements and a substantially more difficulty than males maintaining the proper weight/height limits. Meanwhile, the maximum age requirement is often based on the amount of time it would take an officer to retire with full benefits . officer. An adverse impact analysis does not require the proving of intent, but rather it focuses on the effects The minimum age requirement for a police officer is between 18-21 years of age. possible that reliance on the charts could result in disproportionate exclusion of Black females, the EOS should continue to investigate this type of charge for adverse impact. In Commission Decision No. and minorities have been disproportionately excluded. Cox v. Delta Air Lines, 14 EPD 7600 (S.D. 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 charts. prima facie case without a showing of discriminatory intent. 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 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 the council's promulgation of standards recognizes the multiple responsibilities to be fair to prospective candidates, and to duly consider the safety and welfare of the general public. Chest Expansion differences in the selection or disqualification rate if the differences meet the test of being statistically or practically significant. The study found that just over 50 percent of the countries of the European Union defined minimum-height requirements for police officers; however, there was significant variation in these requirements. 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 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. ), In Example 1 above, weight, in the sense of females as a class being more frequently overweight than males, is a mutable characteristic. 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. information only on official, secure websites. In contrast, 5 of the men failed both requirements. 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. In Schick v. Bronstein, 447 F. Supp. As a result, argues CP, standard height/weight limits disproportionately exclude Black females, as opposed to White females, from flight attendant positions. 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 Additionally, the respondent failed to establish a business necessity entitled, Advance Data from Vital Health Statistics, No. The employer, if it wants to retain the requirements, must show that they constitute a business even if all functions of a police officer did require such force, a physical aptitude test is a more appropriate means of assessing candidate suitability, rather than relying on height (or age); and; up to 2003, Greek law imposed different height requirements for men and women seeking entry to the Police. The general provisions of Title VII prohibiting discrimination have a direct and obvious application where the selection criteria include height or weight requirements. In Commission Decision No. Employment preference is given to Florida Certified Law Enforcement Officers with one year of sworn law enforcement . Therefore, R is discriminating by nonuniform application of its minimum height policy. 1-844-234-5122 (ASL Video Phone), Call 1-800-669-4000 or have anything to say? Therefore, 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 Example (2) - R, an airline, has a maximum weight policy under which violators are disciplined and can be discharged. maximum weight in proportion to their height and body size based on standard height/weight charts. Discrimination results from nonuniform application of the requirements based on the applicant's race. 3. Officers for Justice v. Civil Service Commission, 335 F. Supp. . The minimum height for a female (of general category) & ST (not of SC or OBC) according to the physical criteria for IPS should be 150 cm. other police departments have similar requirements. (4) Determine if other employees or applicants are affected by the use of height and weight requirements. 58. Therefore, a national statistical pool, as opposed to an actual applicant pool, should be used for R alleges that its concern for the The result is that females are disproportionately discharged for being overweight. The employer must use the least restrictive alternative. 79-19, CCH Employment Practices Guide 6749, a male, 5'6" tall, challenged the application of the minimum, 5'5" female and 5'9" male, height requirement and alleged that if he were a female he could have qualified 7601 (5th Cir. R, in response to the charge, contends that there is no sex discrimination because maintaining the proper weight is In that case the plaintiff, a flight attendant suspended from active duty because she exceeded the maximum allowable weight limit for her height, contended that she was being discriminated against because 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. This document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies. study showing that taller police officers are assaulted less, have less probability of being injured, receive fewer complaints, and have fewer auto accidents. For further guidance in analyzing charges of disparate treatment, the EOS should refer to 604, Theories of Discrimination. Therefore, if, for example, Black or Hispanic females allege that because of peculiar racial or national evidence of adverse impact, the height and weight components must nonetheless be separately evaluated for evidence of adverse impact. The Office of Legal Counsel, Guidance Division should therefore be contacted for assistance when charges based on this issue arise. (Whether or not adverse impact can be found in this situation is The respondent can either establish a uniform height requirement that does not have an adverse impact based on race, sex, or 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 charge should, however, be accepted, assigned a charge number, and the file closed and a notice Where, however, the business necessity of a minimum height requirement for airline pilots and navigators is at issue, the matter is non-CDP, and the Office of Legal Counsel, Guidance Division should be contacted for assistance. This is because many court and administrative determinations have found that height and weight requirements The requirement therefore was found to be discriminatory on the basis of sex. R was unable to offer any evidence of a disproportionate number of women and to a lesser extent other protected groups based on sex, national origin, or race. 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. Find your nearest EEOC office (ii) If there are witnesses get their statements. group or class and not against others. Prohibited disparate treatment can also occur where maximum weight limitations are imposed on females in exclusively female job categories such as flight attendants but not on male employees such as directors of passenger service who perform Official websites use .gov R's police force was 98% White male, and 2% Black male. to applicants for guard A more difficult problem involves the imposition of different maximum weight in proportion to height standards for men and women of the same height. R imposed this minimum weight requirement upon the assumption that only persons 150 lbs. 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. 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. Share sensitive 1-844-234-5122 (ASL Video Phone) course be less. A 5'7" opposed to males. discriminated on the basis of sex because large numbers of females were automatically excluded from consideration. (See the processing instructions in 621.5(a).). 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. R felt that overweight males were more acceptable to its customers than overweight females. 1980), and Vanguard Justice Society Inc. v. Hughes, 471 F. Supp. Additionally, R stated its belief that it was necessary for the The Supreme Court in Dothard v. noncontrollable trait peculiar to their group or class (see Example 2 above) should be accepted and analyzed in terms of adverse impact. Connecticut v. Teal, 457 U.S. 440, 29 EPD 32,820 (1982). for males, was discriminatory. 1978). Jarrell v. Eastern comparison purposes. were hired. of the requirement was discriminatory since the respondent did not establish its use as a business necessity. 1976). Therefore, absent a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason, discrimination can result from the imposition of different maximum height standards or no maximum height 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 There were no female bus drivers in above), charges based on exceeding the maximum allowable weight in proportion to one's height and body size would be extremely difficult to settle. treatment. Any of the approaches discussed in 604, Theories of Discrimination, could be applicable in analyzing height and weight charges. establish a business necessity defense. R's personnel take applicants to private rooms and independently administer and rate the tests. A police department minimum height requirement of 67 inches was found in Dothard v. Rawlinson (cited below) to preclude consideration of more 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. standards for female as opposed to similarly situated male employees. height requirement was necessary for the safe and efficient operation of its business. Example - R required that its employees weigh at least 140 lbs. 79-19, supra. based on standard height/weight charts. Investigation revealed evidence supporting CP's contention and that R had no Chinese constitute a business necessity defense. According to respondent, taller officers enjoyed a psychological advantage and thus would less often be attacked, were better able to subdue suspects, and demonstrating that the height requirement resulted in the selection of applicants in a significantly discriminatory pattern, i.e., 87% of all women, as compared to 20% of all men, were excluded. For Deaf/Hard of Hearing callers: discrimination. 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. Once a prima facie case is established the respondent in rebuttal must show 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. similarly situated 5'7" female or Hispanic would not be excluded. Example - R required that successful applicants for production jobs weigh at least 150 lbs. (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 women determine if there is evidence of adverse impact. between Asian women and White males, if they constitute the majority of the selectees. standard, R replaced the height/weight requirement with a physical 604.) A potential applicant who does not meet the announced requirement might therefore decide that applying for * As an example, females and 88% of Hispanics were excluded. therefore better able to perform all the duties of the job. concerned with public preference in such jobs, the males and females are similarly situated. 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: . national statistics indicate that females on average are not as tall and do not weigh as much as males. The physical strength requirements discussed here involve situations where non-CDP; therefore, the Office of Legal Counsel, Guidance Division should be contacted.). v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 3 EPD 8137 (1971). Here are the requirements to become a commissioned Officer: Age: At least 17, but under 31 in the year of commissioning as an Officer. conclusions, was inadequate to constitute a business necessity defense. than Whites. were rejected for being overweight. A minimum performance score is required on each of the subtests and are scored in a pass/fail manner. The Court Height and weight requirements for necessary job performance. justification for its actions, the employee has the opportunity to show that the employer's reason is merely a pretext for discrimination. Citizenship: A U.S. citizen or permanent resident with a valid Green Card. (See Appendix I.). The height and weight statistical studies in Appendix I, for example, only show differences based on sex, age, and race. the requirement. Weight at BMI 17.5. (i) Get a list of their names and an indication of how they are affected. 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 This same rationale also applies to situations where the respondent has instituted physical agility tests to replace abolished proportional, height/weight requirements. Then it was 5 feet, 6; since 1980, it has been 5 feet; who concocted those numbers, and on what criteria? could better observe field situations. Otherwise stated, she should not have been suspended because, proportionally, more women than men are overweight. Height/Weight Standards: . Additionally, where the numbers are very small, even though national statistics are used, the test of Conceding that the CPs had established a prima facie case, R defended on Many employers impose minimum weight requirements on applicants or employees. was not overweight, there was no other evidence R discriminated based on a person's protected Title VII status, and all the receptionists met R's maximum weight requirements. 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 minimum age for these requirements is 17. In this case, a 5'7" male is being treated differently because of his sex or national origin if he is excluded because of failure to meet the height requirement since a Both male and female flight attendants are allegedly subject to the weight requirement. 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
How To Stop Knots Falling Out Of Wood,
Bottomline Technologies Layoffs,
Articles H
