Case Study Of Dianne Rawlinson

1030 Words5 Pages
Dothard v. Rawlinson In Alabama in the early 1970’s, there was a height and weight limitation, in order to be considered as a candidate for becoming a prison guard. The restrictions were minimum 5’2 and 120 pounds. Such requests ruled out Dianne Rawlinson, who made a class action suit against the requirements, as she thought that they violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Dianne Rawlinson raised the legal question in Court whenever height and weight requirements for employment as a prison guard in the Alabama would violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. At the same time, Alabama passed a regulation, demanding that guards had to be the same sex as the convicts. At that point, in Alabama, there existed four entire male security prisons, but only one female prison. This would…show more content…
In order words, the restrictions were a discrimination against women. However, the case questioned women’s possibilities to fulfill the job in an all male security prison. The Court decided that bona fide occupational qualifications were valid in this case. Thus, the Court concluded that Dianne Rawlinson would be more vulnerable as a female prison guard to male sexual attacks in contrast to the male prison guards. In other words, it was for safety reasons. The case was the first one to use the concept of bona fide occupational qualifications. The holding of the Court stated that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is not allowed for an employer to set both weight and height restrictions that will have an effect on one specific gender. The Supreme Court found that the restrictions did violate Title VII, due to the restrictions would prohibit less than 1 percent of men, while it would exclude around 41 percent of the female population in

More about Case Study Of Dianne Rawlinson

Open Document