For some brand of jobs lowest peak requirements was basically built by the employers

(a) General –

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 actually handled in more detail inside § 610, Adverse Perception about Alternatives Process. The newest EOS should also consider this new Consistent Advice with the Employee Possibilities Procedures which are reprinted while the an enthusiastic appendix in order 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.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, age.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.

On the other hand, since the level, along with lbs, difficulties regarding tall could potentially form a handicap, the latest EOS should be aware of the requirement to generate recharging parties otherwise potential charging functions alert to its to just do it around most other rules. (Comprehend the handling tips when you look at the § 621.5(a).)

(b) Different Therapy –

With regards to a disparate therapy data away from minimum height requirements, the difference from inside the treatment will probably be predicated on often this new nonuniform applying of an individual level requirements otherwise more level criteria for women in lieu of boys. Both of these tips are portrayed from the examples and therefore realize.

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.

Author Leader Cashmere