End date 1977 | ||
Full case name Dothard, Director, Department of Public Safety of Alabama, et al. v. Dianne Rawlinson, et al. Citations 433 U.S. 321 (more)
97 S. Ct. 2720; 53 L. Ed. 2d 786; 1977 U.S. LEXIS 143; 15 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 10; 14 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P7632 Prior history Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama Majority Stewart, joined by Burger, Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist, Stevens Concurrence Rehnquist, joined by Burger, Blackmun Concur/dissent Marshall, joined by Brennan Similar Griggs v Duke Power Co, Wards Cove Packing, Price Waterhouse v Hopkins, Phillips v Martin Marietta, Reed v Reed | ||
Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 US 321 (1977), was the first United States Supreme Court case which the bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQ) defense was used.
Contents
Facts
In the 1970s there were height and weight restrictions (minimum 5’2”, 120 lbs) to be considered as an applicant for an Alabama prison guard. Such requirements ruled out Dianne Rawlinson, who brought forth a class action suit against these requirements under the disparate impact theory of Title VII. 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
The Court ruled 8-1 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 6-3 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.