Dothard v rawlinson

I join the Court's opinion in Hazelwood School Dist.

Dothard v rawlinson

Such requirements ruled out Dianne Rawlinson, who brought forth a class action suit against these requirements under the disparate impact theory of Title VII.

Keep Exploring Britannica

After Rawlinson filed her suit Alabama passed a regulation requiring that guards be the same sex as the inmates, at the time in Alabama there were four all male maximum security prisons and only one all female prison.

The lower court sided with Rawlinson claiming that the requirements created an arbitrary barrier to equal employment to women. The State then appealed to the Supreme Court claiming that sex, height and weight requirements were valid occupational qualifications given the nature of the job.

Judgment[ edit ] The Court ruled that the height and weight restrictions were discriminatory, and that the employer had not proven that the height and weight standards were necessary for effective job performance.

On the issue of whether women could fill close contact jobs in all male maximum security prisons the Court ruled that the BFOQ defense was legitimate in this case.

The reason for this finding is that female prison guards were more vulnerable to male sexual attack than male prison guards.Dothard v. Rawlinson - Case Background.

Facts of the case

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of bars discrimination in hiring based on gender. It has also been interpreted to prohibit other forms of discrimination, which, while not specifically based on gender, serve by indirect means to eliminate women from a pool of job applicants.

In Dothard v. Rawlinson, No. , I have more trouble agreeing that a prima facie case of sex discrimination was made out by statistics showing that the Alabama height and weight requirements would exclude a larger percentage of women in the United States than of men.

Plaintiff: Dianne Rawlinson Defendant: Alabama; Dianne wanted to work as a correctional counselor at Alabama prison but she could not meet the lb. minimum weight requirement.

She states that the 5’2, lbs requirement discriminates against the women and has a disparate impact on her gender. Summary of Dothard v. Rawlinson Plaintiff: Dianne Rawlinson Defendant: Alabama; Dianne wanted to work as a correctional counselor at Alabama prison but she could not meet the lb.

Dothard v rawlinson

minimum. Case opinion for US Supreme Court DOTHARD v. RAWLINSON. Read the Court's full decision on FindLaw. Rawlinson did not meet the minimum weight requirement, so the Department refused to hire her.

Dothard v rawlinson

Rawlinson sued on behalf of herself and all similarly-situated women under Title VII, alleging sex discrimination.

Dothard v. Rawlinson | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute