Resources for May 8, 2010

Dothard v. Rawlinson (working in high security prisons) Two Complaints (the Rawlinson, v. Alabama prisons) Sex Discrimination Height/Weight requirements=sex discrimination Facial discrimination not justified by BFOQ Alabama said that strength was the issue, SCs aid there are other ways to test for strength Rawlinson won her case that it was a pretext for discrimination BfOQ Reasonable exception in religion, sex, or national origin. Ex. Priest of a Church, need to be Catholic need to be male. 2nd Complaint Changed the law that only men could work at high security prison Majority opinion, sex offenders are mixed up. The sex offenders would want to rape the women. Makes the assumptions that all sex offenses are against women and all sex offenders offend all the time Why is sex offend automatic, but murdering, robbing, and burglary isnt taken into account? Excerpt from BFOQ In those certain instances where religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular.. One wrong means another wrong. Dianne Rawlinson, won height/weight. Helped many jobs across the nation. There were lots of height/weight pretext requirements because due to the Civil Rights Act The prevailing view Firefighters need to be strong. Men are strong Firefighters need to be men. Accurate? Are all men stronger than all women? Relevant? If firefighters need to be strong, how strong? And test for that. Beingcareful about using sex as a proxy, especially given the history of using sex to discriminate (while calling it something else) height/weight requirements = sex discrimination With the requirements, 41% of women and 1% of men wouldnt be able to do the job. Facts in the Case: Appellee Dianne Rawlinson sought employment with the Alabama Board of Corrections as a prison guard, when her application was rejected she brought a lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Height and Weight Requirements, to show strength, appellants produced no evidence correlting the height and weight District Court said that Title VII prohibits application of the statutory height and weight requirements to Rawlinson and the class she represents. Supreme Court: Unwise to have women has guards in mens priosns due to sex crimes and men not respecting women. The employees very womanhood would thus directly undermine her capacity to provide the security that is the essence of correctional counselors responsibility. Dissent, Justice Marshall oReject two of the justifications A job is too dangerous for womenwomen can decide for herself Barbaric and inhumane conditions, violate the constitution, possible harm to women guards is an unacceptable reason for disqualifying women. This says women are seductive sex objects.. <