(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 problem try treated in detail for the § 610, Bad Perception on the Options Process. The fresh EOS should also relate to brand new Consistent Advice with the Employee Choice Measures which happen to be reprinted just like the an enthusiastic appendix 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, elizabeth.g., 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, elizabeth.grams., where the employer has a 5’5″ minimum height requirement 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.
Simultaneously, just like the top, including weight, trouble from the high could potentially comprise an impairment, the EOS should become aware of the necessity to make recharging people otherwise prospective charging you activities conscious of their to go-ahead below most other rules. (Comprehend the operating recommendations during the § 621.5(a).)
(b) Different Therapy –
With respect to a disparate medication analysis off minimum top standards, the difference in the procedures will probably be based on sometimes the fresh new nonuniform applying of a single top specifications or different level requirements for females in lieu of boys. Those two steps is actually depicted regarding the advice and viz web that 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.