(a) Standard –

These jobs include police officers, state troopers, flight attendants, lifeguards, firefighters, correctional officers, and even production workers and lab aides. 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 stronger. The overall effect, however, is to disproportionately exclude women, Hispanics, and certain Asians from employment because on average they are shorter than males or members of other national origins or races. The resultant disproportionate exclusion or adverse impact can, based on national statistics, constitute a prima facie case of discrimination. The employer, if it wants to retain the requirements, must show that they constitute a business necessity without which the business could not safely and efficiently be performed. 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 alternatives that have less of an adverse impact. The employer must use the least restrictive alternative.

This dilemma is treated in more detail during the § 610, Negative Effect on Options Processes. This new EOS must reference the fresh Consistent Recommendations towards Employee Choices Tips being reprinted as the an enthusiastic appendix so you’re able to § 610.

Minimum height requirements can also result in disparate treatment of protected group or class members if the minimum requirements are not uniformly applied, age.grams., where the employer applies a minimum 5’8″ height requirement strictly to exclude Black applicants, while liberally granting exceptions to White applicants. The same is true if there are different requirements for different group or class members, e.grams., where the employer has a 5’5″ minimum height requirement Elk Grove CA eros escort for women or Hispanics and a 5’8″ requirement for other applicants. 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 similarly situated 5’7″ female or Hispanic would not be excluded. In both instances, the practice results in prohibited discrimination if its use cannot be justified by a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason. If the employer presents a justification for its actions, the employee has the opportunity to show that the employer’s reason is merely a pretext for discrimination.

In addition, as height, including weight, dilemmas regarding high may potentially comprise a disability, the EOS should be aware of the necessity to create charging you people otherwise potential charging people conscious of the directly to go ahead significantly less than almost every other guidelines. (See the control advice during the § 621.5(a).)

(b) Disparate Medication –

In terms of a disparate cures data away from lowest top conditions, the difference when you look at the treatment will be considering either the nonuniform application of an individual height requisite otherwise different height conditions for women in lieu of people. These tactics try depicted throughout the instances and therefore go after.

Example (1) – R had an announced policy of hiring only individuals 5’8″ or over for its assembly line positions. CP, a 5’7″ Black female, applied for but was denied an assembly line position because she failed to meet R’s minimum height requirements. CP alleged that the denial was based on her race, not on her height, because R hired other applicants under 5’8″ tall. Investigation revealed that R had no Black assembly line workers and that a substantial number of R’s existing employees and new hires were under 5’8″ tall. Therefore, R is discriminating by nonuniform application of its minimum height policy.