Question

3. Diane Rawlinson was a college graduate in correctional psychology. She applied for a job as a guard at a maximum-security prison in Alabama. She was denied the job for 2 reasons: first she did not meet minimum height and weight criteria (180 pounds/ 5 feet 10 inches) and second that the correctional board had adopted a rule that prohibited women from “contact positions” with male inmates in maximum-security facilities. Rawlinson sued the state of Alabama under Title VII.

a. Are the height/weight requirements disparate impact or disparate treatment discrimination assuming they are not job-related?

b. Is the rule prohibiting women from these positions disparate impact or disparate treatment assuming gender is not a BFOQ?

Answer 1

A.

The height/weight requirements are the minimum qualification set by the authority as per the past observation and statistically proven that people above these are for sure suited for the job.

These are criteria to ensure fitness in the position and cut off is to screen candidates who are more fit.

They are not directly job related but by past behavior and credence given to these are minimum standard that the company shoud maintain as part of the screening.

So, these are to be abide by.

b.   Is the rule prohibiting women from these positions disparate impact or disparate treatment assuming gender is not a BFOQ?

This can be said as disparate treatment as equal opportunity is not provided, but the simple reason for it is

• To ensure safety of the employee, if the person is a woman.

So, ideally the choice should be of the employee to decide to take up the position, while the employer can warn, but can not reject the candidature on this particular criteria.