Facially Neutral Policy Case Study

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.

According to Bennett-Alexander & Hartman (2015), disparate impact is defined as “treating similarly situated employees differently because of prohibited Title VII or other employment discrimination law factors” (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2015, p. 64). It can be considered to be intentional discrimination, on the basis that the employee or perspective job applicant can demonstrate a difference in treatment by the employer without appropriate justification (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2015). If an employee or perspective job applicant decides to file a lawsuit, then under McDonnell Douglas case, the employer must set up a legal test to consider all relevant factors, if the questions were answered and there is still no suitable justification then the only factors left to consider are age, color, gender, religion, national origin, or other protected category (Bennett-Alexander & Hartman, 2015).

Disparate treatment is the unlawful treatment of individuals that violates Title VII rights. The Different treatment of a plaintiff relies on direct, comparative, and circumstantial evidence to meet their burden of persuasion (Roberts, 2010). When individuals complain, they have been treated differently due to their protected class. They are claiming the organization has discriminated against them. For instance, this employee may state the firm only hires males at this facility. Upon investigation, the employer learns that the ratio of workers who are men is greater than women. At this point, the company may explain why the reason for hiring males is higher since women cannot perform these tasks as it may affect their well-being. Nevertheless,

129 S. Ct. 2658, 2664 174 L. Ed. 2d 490, 505. This vague standard will undoubtedly spur more litigation as employers struggle to decipher what “a strong basis in evidence” exactly means. Furthermore, employers must now establish a Title VII claim against themselves before they can act.

The following essay describes discrimination lawsuits brought up against the Hooters restaurant chain. Employees in Michigan filed suit and said they were discriminated for being overweight while employed as servers. According to Leanne Convery, who was one of the women who fired, she weighed 115 pounds at the time and four-feet-eleven at the time. She was encouraged to take stimulants such as Adderall and appetite suppressants to speed up weight loss (Foley, 2010). Hooters found a way to navigate the discrimination laws using bona fide occupation qualifications (BFOQ).

Employers complained about hiring quotas and the necessity of employing minority contractors, but across-the-board, affirmative action in the workplace was accepted by both the voters and the Supreme Court. Affirmative action was soon extended to women as well as educational institutions. The Supreme Court prohibited excluding women and minorities from employment on the basis of artificial hurdles such as physical strength or intelligence tests when these did not directly reflect the demands of the job. The court's opinion implied that the only way to assure avoidance of charges of discrimination was for employers to hire workers and for schools to admit students in proportion to their racial and gender presence in the

Despite all of the progress that has made towards equal opportunity, discrimination is still a major problem in the United States of America. A relatively new phenomenon, titled genetic discrimination, occurs when individuals are discriminated against on account of their genetic information. On May 21st, 2008, the GINA Act was passed, making it illegal to refuse to provide employment or health insurance to individuals based on their genetic information in all U.S. states and territories. Title I prevents genetic discrimination in health coverage, while Title II prevents genetic discrimination in employment. Title I took effect on May 21st, 2009, and Title II took effect eighteen months later on November 21st, 2009. With the GINA Act, it is

The case of Dothard v. Rawlinson presented two separate factors, the first was that of discrimination against gender based upon height and weight, the second was discrimination against women impartially (Cornell University Law School, n.d.). The court upheld that limiting hiring based on height and weight could not be a substantial judgment of strength. This ruling paved a new road for several individuals to enter into a career in law enforcement that had previously been restricted from doing so. The statistics presented in the Dothard v. Rawlinson case displayed that over 40% of females were automatically eliminated from the application pool due to the height and weight restrictions, consequently, less that 1% of male applicants were affected

GINA comprises of two titles; title one bans genetic discrimination involving health insurance, and title two makes it unlawful to discriminate against employees based on their genetic information. This paper will out more emphasis on title one.

We all ought to be for the 2nd degree standard of affirmative action as the hiring process stays objective in this degree. Taking a second look over a resume or looking past the front page of a minority resume does not directly guarantee a job for them, but just gives them a higher chance to be noticed. However, when bumping up to the 3rd degree standard of affirmative action, the hiring process turns subjective. Hiring a person just because of their race or gender disregards any qualifications needed for the positions work. A

Though the company’s supported this decision on their policy at the time, it raises the ethical question of whether the company should have analyzed the accommodation request (as a case-by-case situation) rather than defending blanket rules based on the source of the temporary inability to perform the job. How much of a liability would it have been for UPS to temporarily accommodate pregnant employees, when it already accommodated a larger group? As Justice Breyer put it, “why, when the employer accommodated so many, could it not accommodate pregnant women as well?” Can company policies less favorably to pregnant employees be a sign of sex inequality, as pregnancy only affects women? How could UPS accommodate a driver who lost their DOT certification (because of a failed medical exam, lost driver’s license, or involvement in a motor vehicle accident – all of which I consider can be a result of personal decisions outside the job), yet it puts pressure on women to make a decision between pregnancy and their ability to remain

When the issue of discrimination materializes, the common types that come to mind are class, race, and gender discrimination. However, appearance-based discrimination in the workplace is a growing issue in America. Discrimination based on appearance is different from other forms in that it can be used to discriminate against a wide range of people. From gender, race, and sex, to social class, age, and weight, every person has a physical appearance, which in turn makes every person a candidate for being judged. Whether intentional or unintentional, the physical appearances of workers from all walks of life are being subjected to corporate scrutiny. When deciding who should represent their companies, American employers tend to focus on

Equal Chances, not Equal Results. The Civil Rights movement made discrimination illegal. However, affirmative action has grown from the goal of “equal chances” to the goal of “equal results.” Quotas, goals, and timetables force employers and universities to accept people based on factors other than capability. But people will never have exactly equal results. A healthy system will produce many groups whose race percentages may not perfectly match those of our country as a whole, and that is fine. Decisions should not be made in order to meet a goal or fill up a

Title VII inhibits discrimination during any stage of the employment, this includes: hiring, firing, discipline, promotion, and benefits (Hudson-Arney). In the beginning of the movie we witness discrimination in the hiring process, as soon as Andy walks in, the first secretary, Emily says, “Great. Human Resource certainly has an odd sense of humor”, looking at her in a mocking way (Hedges, 2005).

Johnson 1976; Philips v. Martin Marietta Corp. 1971; UAW v. Johnson Controls, Inc. 1991; Wilson v. Southwest Airlines Co. 1981). Such regulations, including limitations or prohibitions applicable to hair length, hair style, uniforms, jewelry, and (more recently) body piercings, have drawn minimal judicial concern under Title VII because they do not involve “immutable characteristics” such as race or color, and individuals typically have the ability to comply (see, e.g., Baker v. Cal. Land Title 1974, and Harper v. Blockbuster 1998 [hair length]; Booth et al. v. Maryland Dept. of Public Safety 2003 [dreadlocks]; Cloutier v. Costco 2004 [piercing and body modification]). Although courts generally have been deferential to an employer’s desire to regulate employee appearance in order to present to its customers a professional-looking workforce (Cloutier v. Costco 2004; Wisely v. Harrah’s 2004), where appearance standards clearly apply differently to men and women, they are typically held to be prima facie discriminatory under Title VII, and thus sustainable only if based on a BFOQ. For example, in Frank v. United Airlines (2000), the Ninth Circuit held that flight attendant weight