The Commission also However, there is limited population-specific research on age, gender and normative fitness values for law enforcement officers as opposed to those of the general population. The maximum score per event is 100 points, with a total maximum ACFT score of 600. Rawlinson, supra, the Supreme Court found that applying a requirement of minimum height of 5'2 and weight of 120 lbs. 80-5 (unpublished), the Commission found that there was not enough statistical data available to conclude that Black females, in contrast to White females whose weight is distributed differently, are disproportionately locale or region and as to the particular racial or national origin group. resultant disproportionate exclusion of females from consideration for employment establishes a prima facie case of sex discrimination. (See Appendix I.). In Commission Decision No. (1) Secure a detailed statement delineating exactly what kind of height and weight requirements are being used and how they are being used. (See Example 3 below.). Labor, Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs. because of her sex in that males were not subject to the policy. R felt that overweight males were more acceptable to its customers than overweight females. 1-844-234-5122 (ASL Video Phone)
plaintiff's legal theory was inadequate since weight is subject to one's control and not an unchangeable characteristic entitled to protection under Title VII. Height and weight requirements for necessary job performance The U.S. Supreme Court case of Dothard v. Rawlinson (1977) revolved around what police candidate issue? opposed to males. The Court in Dothard (cited below and discussed in 621.1(b)(2)(iv)) stated that since otherwise qualified individuals might be discouraged from applying because of their National statistics showed that the combined height and weight requirements excluded 41.13% of the female population, as R alleges that its concern for the According to CP, Black females, because of a trait peculiar to their race and not subject to their personal control, who were over 6'5" and that R employed White pilots who exceeded the maximum height. The Commission relied on national statistics which showed that 80% of adult females are less than 5'5" tall and that the average height of Hispanic males is 5'4 1/2", while the average height of Anglo males is Recruitment of minorities is more important now more than ever because __________. Example (2) - R, city bus company, had a 5'7" minimum height requirement for its drivers. In Commission Decision No. Along these lines, the issue that the EOS might encounter is an assertion that, since weight is not an immutable characteristic, it is permissible to discriminate based on weight. CP, a 6'7" male, applied but was rejected for a police officer position because he is over the maximum height. minimum weight standards for different group or class members because of their protected status or nonuniform application of the same minimum weight standard can, absent a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its use, result in prohibited However, some departments set a minimum age requirement of 20, with the condition that the candidate must be 21 when they were sworn in. 192 192 See Amie M. Schuck, . (The issue of whether adverse impact The standards include physical aptitude tests and a requirement that officers' waistlines be 40 inches for men and 35 inches for women. The physical strength requirements discussed here involve situations where Find your nearest EEOC office
One had to be at least 5'8" to apply to be a cop. requirements have been set for females as opposed to males. In early decisions, the Commission found that because of national significance, it was appropriate to use national statistics, as opposed to actual applicant flow data, to establish a prima facie case. presented to the Commission by Black and Hispanic women both groups were unable to meet the first requirement of proving statistically that, on average, their groups weighed more. female applicant who was not hired for a vacant flight attendant position, filed a charge alleging adverse impact based on race. statutes. Local Commissions may adopt the following height and weight schedule in its entirely and may exercise the option of permitting no exceptions An adverse impact analysis does not require the proving of intent, but rather it focuses on the effects women passed the wall requirement, and none passed the sandbag requirement. positions when considering Black applicants, while liberally granting exceptions when considering White applicants. The position taken by the Commission requiring that height and weight requirements be evaluated for adverse impact regardless of whether the bottom line is nondiscriminatory was confirmed by the Supreme Court in CP, a Black A direct analogy was drawn to the long hair cases where the circuit courts race. Even though national statistics are used, 4(D) of the UGESP recognizes that there can still be evidence of adverse impact, often with very large numbers since a national pool is used, based on smaller percentage In Commission Decision No. In addition to physiological differences, arguments have been advanced that weight is not an immutable characteristic (see 621.5(a)) and that policies based on personal appearance (see 619, Grooming Standards) do not result in Even though there are no Commission decisions dealing with disparate treatment resulting from use of a maximum height requirement, the EOS can use the basic disparate treatment analysis set forth in 604, Theories of Discrimination, to groups was not justified as a business necessity or validated in accordance with Commission guidelines. Prohibited disparate treatment can also occur where maximum weight limitations are imposed on females in exclusively female job categories such as flight attendants but not on male employees such as directors of passenger service who perform 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 alternatives that have less of an adverse impact. 1607, there is a substantial difference and * As an example, CP, a female stewardess who was disciplined for being overweight, filed a charge alleging that she was being discriminated against 79-25, CCH Employment Practices Guide 6752, the Commission found that a prima facie case of sex discrimination based on application of minimum height requirements was not rebutted by evidence that In terms of health concerns, at least where different charts are used potentially rendering compliance by females more difficult and a health hazard, reference should be made to Association of Flight Attendants v. Ozark Air Lines, 470 F. 1132, 19 EPD 9267 (N.D. Ill. 1979). for a police cadet position. CP alleged that the denial was based on her race, not on her height, because R hired other applicants under 5'8" tall. This issue is non-CDP. Example (4) - Full Processing Indicated - CPs, Black female applicants for jobs at R's bank, allege that R discriminated against them by denying them employment because they exceeded the maximum weight limit allowed by R revealed that although only two out of 237 female flight attendants employed by R are Black, there is no statistical or other evidence indicating that Black females as a class weigh more than White females. Since a determination revolves solely on sex, the practice is a violation of Title VII. and ability to comply, are consistent with accepted medical notions of good health, and exemptions are available for those medically unable to comply, the use of different standards does not result in prohibited discrimination. the council's promulgation of standards recognizes the multiple responsibilities to be fair to prospective candidates, and to duly consider the safety and welfare of the general public. to applicants for guard When you are accepted as a cadet with the RCMP you are expected to enter cadet training with a good level of physical fitness. That court left open the question of whether discrimination can occur where women are forced to resort to "diuretics, diet pills, and crash dieting" to meet disparate weight requirements. Additionally, R stated its belief that it was necessary for the When law enforcement agencies started recruiting women and racial/ethnic minorities for general police service, the height requirements had to go, as there just aren't a lot of women and some minorities who are over 59. 1980); Blake v. City of Los Angeles, 595 F.2d 1367, 19 EPD 9251 (9th Cir. (1) Disparate Treatment Analysis - The disparate treatment analysis is typically applicable where the respondent has a height or weight requirement, but it is only enforced against one protected exists in this situation is non-CDP; therefore, the Office of Legal Counsel, Guidance Division should be contacted when it arises. According to R, individuals under 5'7" could not see properly or operate the controls of a bus. 884, 17 EPD 8462 (E.D. It is nonetheless conceivable that charges could be brought challenging a maximum height requirement as discriminatory. Additionally, the Black female was unable to show that statistically Investigation The respondent did not show the existence of a valid relationship between strength and weight. This issue must remain non-CDP. Except for a fact situation like the one suggested in 621.3(a) above, it is unlikely that a charging party will be able to establish that his protected group or class is on average taller than other groups or classes and height requirement was necessary for the safe and efficient operation of its business. The required height for women is relaxable to 145 cm in the case of applicants from ST and races like Gorkhas, Garhwalis, Assamese, Kumaonis, Nagaland Tribals, and others. Your are also quite skinny even for someone of your height. When that happens, the Office of Legal Counsel, Guidance Division should be contacted for assistance. determine if there is evidence of adverse impact. The prior incumbent, the selectee, and the charging party were all female, and The court in Cox (cited below), when faced with the argument that statistically more women than men exceed permissible height/weight in proportion to body size standards, concluded that, even if this were true, there was no sex females than males since the average height for females is 63 inches, and the average height for males is 68.2 inches. The following table of height and weight is to be adhered to in all instances except where a particularly unusual situation is found and is documented by a special report of the examining physician. (This problem is discussed further in 621.6, below.). Employees or applicants of employers that are recipients of federal contracts should contact the United States Department of R defended on the ground that CP was not being treated differently from similarly situated males because there were no male stewards or passenger service representatives. The court in Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 366 F.Supp. Additionally, even though Chinese constituted 17% of the population, only 1% of R's workforce was Chinese. Although, as was suggested in 621.2 above, many Commission decisions and court cases involve minimum height requirements, few deal with maximum height therefore evidence of adverse impact if the selection rate for the excluded group is less than 80% of the rate for the group with the highest selection rate. Only when it can be determined as a matter of law that it is a question of weight as a mutable characteristic as in the Cox, supra type situation presented in Examples 1 and 3 above should further processing cease; otherwise as in That is, they do not have to prove that in a particular job, in a particular locale, a particular employer's records show that it disproportionately excludes them because of minimum height or weight requirements. The defendants responded that height and weight requirements "have a relationship to strength, . 1982) (where a distinction is made as to treatment A police department minimum height requirement of 67 inches was found in Dothard v. Rawlinson (cited below) to preclude consideration of more females than males since the average height for females is 63 inches, and the average height for males is 68.2 inches. In terms of an adverse impact analysis, the Court in Dothard v. Rawlinson looked at national statistics showing that the minimum 120-pound weight requirement would exclude 22.29% of females, as compared to only 2.35% of males. resolve such charges and as a guide to drafting the LOD. aides. Tex. The result is that, if meeting a minimum height or weight limit is a requirement for employment, these protected group members will most Otherwise stated, she should not have been suspended because, proportionally, more women than men are overweight. establish a business necessity defense. ), In terms of processing maximum weight requirements, since some courts have concluded that weight, in the sense of being overweight, is not an immutable characteristic, i.e., it is changeable and is subject to one's control (see Example 1 according to its statutory mandate the municipal police training council established physical standards for male and female officers. According to the United States Army official site for recruiting, the height range for recruits starts at 5'0 and ends at 6'8 for men and 4'10 to 6'8 for women. Otherwise stated, if the allegation is that women as a class are, based on statistics, more frequently overweight than men, this charge should be dismissed in such a manner Selection Procedures at 29 C.F.R. In this case, the height and weight characteristics vary based on the particular This is the range specified on the Army official website that displays its height and weight calculator. substantial number of R's existing employees and new hires were under 5'8" tall. Even though the job categories are different in this case, since the jobs are public contact jobs and R is In the 1977 Dothard v. Rawlinson case, the plaintiffs showed that the height and weight requirements excluded more than 40 percent of women and less than 10 percent of men. 1976). In some cases, In Blake v. City of Los Angeles, 595 F.2d 1367, 19 EPD 9251 (9th Cir. However, such comparisons are simply unfounded. Absent such a showing, a prima facie case is not established. (ii) Four-Fifths Rule - It may not be appropriate in many instances to use the 4/5ths or 80% rule, which is a general rule of thumb or guide for determining whether there is evidence of adverse The EOS should also refer to the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures which are reprinted as an appendix to 610. would be excluded by the application of those minimum requirements. Both male and female flight attendants are allegedly subject to the weight requirement. In contrast to the consistently held position of the Commission, some pre-Dothard v. Rawlinson, 1107, 21 EPD 30,419 (E.D. CP, a 6'6" Black candidate for a pilot trainee position, alleges that he was rejected, not because he exceeded the maximum height, but Members of the 155th trooper training class salute during . Donors must have a body weight of at least 45-50kg. 76-45, CCH Employment Practices Therefore, if, for example, Black or Hispanic females allege that because of peculiar racial or national (b) Analyzing Height and Weight Charts, 621.2 Minimum Height Requirements, 621.3 Maximum Height Requirements, 621.4 Minimum Weight Requirements, 621.5 Maximum Weight Requirements, (d) Different Maximum Weight, Same Height and Standard Charts, 621.6 Physical Strength and Ability or Agility, (b) Physical Strength and Size Requirements, (c) Physical Ability or Agility Tests. Employment preference is given to Florida Certified Law Enforcement Officers with one year of sworn law enforcement . Share sensitive adjustable seats on some vehicles and to a lesser extent, adjustable steering wheels. 79-19, CCH Employment Practices Guide 6749, a male, 5'6" tall, challenged the application of the minimum, 5'5" female and 5'9" male, height requirement and alleged that if he were a female he could have qualified Today, if you can pass the physical fitness/agility tests the agency requires, they don't Continue Reading 54 Chris Everett R had no Black pilots, and no Blacks were accepted as pilot trainees. For example, a police department might stipulate that a candidate who stands 5 feet, 7 inches tall must weigh at least 140 pounds but not more than 180 pounds. 76-31, CCH Employment Practices Guide 6624, the Commission found no evidence of adverse impact against females with respect to a bare unsupported allegation of job denial based on sex, because of a minimum height Maximum height requirements would, of course, Accordingly, The Physical Ability Test consists of three subtests; sit-ups, push-ups and the 1.5 mile run. Connecticut v. Teal, 457 U.S. 440, 29 EPD 32,820 (1982). than their shorter, lighter counterparts. For instance, in U.S. v. Lee Way Motor Freight Inc., 7 EPD 9066 (D.C. Okla. 1973), the respondent, a trucking company, strictly applied its height and weight requirements for driver very charts which are standard, and which are relied on to establish height/weight in proportion to body size contain different permissible limits for men and women in recognition of the physiological differences between the two groups. There may occasionally be instances where it is not appropriate to use national statistics as the basis for the analysis. The policy is not applied to sales agents or pursers for first class passengers who are all male. entitled, Advance Data from Vital Health Statistics, No. The respondent's contention that the minimum requirements bore a relationship to strength was rejected outright since no supportive evidence was produced. weight requirement. differences in the selection or disqualification rate if the differences meet the test of being statistically or practically significant. Reference can be made to general principles of adverse impact analysis and analogies can be drawn to court cases. validate a test that measures strength directly. requirement. The same is true if there are different requirements for different group or class members, e.g., where the employer has a 5'5" minimum height requirement In many instances such as in Dothard v. Rawlinson, supra, minimum height/weight requirements are imposed because of their theoretical relationship to strength. generally concluded that mutable characteristics not peculiar to any protected group or class are not entitled to protection under Title VII. This document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies. Height and weight requirements for necessary job performance. 1979). Jog up three floors and then descend, four times 3. The respondent must consider individual abilities and capabilities. In contrast to a disparate treatment analysis, it does not necessarily indicate an intent to discriminate. 1980) (where a charge of to the respondent was to show that the requirements constituted a business necessity with a manifest relationship to the employment in question. Weight at BMI 17.5. that the minimum weight requirement is a business necessity. necessity without which the business could not safely and efficiently be performed. 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 Therefore, CP, a 5'5 1/2" female applicant, applied for but was denied a police officer job. Example (3) - State Troopers - As with police departments, applying minimum size requirements to applicants for state trooper jobs violates Title VII, unless the respondent can establish that the requirements are necessary Like the above example and in Commission Decision Nos. Anglos testified that they were not aware of the existence of the physical ability/agility tests. 131 M Street, NE
(ii) If there are witnesses get their statements. The unvalidated test required applicants to, among other things, carry a 150 lb. 3. 1131 (N.D. Ohio 1973), a civil rights action was brought by a group of women who alleged that they were denied the opportunity to apply for employment as East Cleveland police officers because they did not meet the 5'8" height requirement and the 150-pound weight requirement imposed by the police department. A more difficult problem involves the imposition of different maximum weight in proportion to height standards for men and women of the same height. requirement, where there was no neutral height policy, and no one had ever been rejected based on height. Unlike minimum height requirements where setting different standards has been found to CP, a female flight attendant who was suspended for 15 days for being three pounds overweight, filed a charge alleging disparate disproportionate exclusion or adverse impact can, based on national statistics, constitute a prima facie case of discrimination. or have anything to say? possible that reliance on the charts could result in disproportionate exclusion of Black females, the EOS should continue to investigate this type of charge for adverse impact. Rawlinson, supra, however, agreed with the Commission's position and used national statistics to find that minimum height and weight requirements were discriminatory and that unsupported assertions about strength were inadequate to national statistics indicate that females on average are not as tall and do not weigh as much as males. (a) The EOS should secure the following information from the charging party in documentary form, where it is available. As the above examples suggest, charges could be framed based on disparate treatment or adverse impact involving a maximum height requirement, and the Commission would have jurisdiction over the matter of the charge. This same rationale also applies to situations where the respondent has instituted physical agility tests to replace abolished proportional, height/weight requirements. HOUSTON POLICE DEPARTMENT HEIGHT AND WEIGHT CHART Exceptions are granted for an applicant whose height and weight is proportioned, or an applicant with a muscular or athletic build. (See Commission Decision No. CP, a female who passed the wall, but not the sandbag requirement, filed a charge alleging sex discrimination The EOS can rely on a traditional disparate treatment analysis such as that suggested in 604, Theories of Discrimination, to solve these problems. 1978). In both instances, the practice results in prohibited discrimination if its use cannot be justified by a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason. There, females could not be over 5'9" tall, while males could not be over 6'0" tall. Cox v. Delta Air Lines, 14 EPD 7600 (S.D. to support its contention. For instance, if the charging party is from a particular Indian tribe located almost exclusively in a particular Out of the next class of 150 applicants, 120 men and 30 women, only two Examples 2 and 4 above processing should continue. The physical agility test, as designed, primarily measured upper body strength thereby disproportionately excluding large numbers of female applicants. Citizenship: A U.S. citizen or permanent resident with a valid Green Card. evidence Black females were disproportionately excluded. According to respondent, taller officers enjoyed a psychological advantage and thus would less often be attacked, were better able to subdue suspects, and , had a 5 ' 7 '' minimum height requirement for its drivers different weight. Or agency policies there was no neutral height policy, and no one had been!, while males could not see properly or operate the controls of a bus to its than... A prima facie case is not applied to sales agents or pursers for class. Excluding large numbers of female applicants that males were not subject to the policy flight attendant position, filed charge. Thereby disproportionately excluding large numbers of female applicants BMI 17.5. that the minimum requirements bore relationship! May occasionally be instances where it is available floors and then descend, four times 3 Officers one. Existing requirements under the law or agency policies minimum weight requirement is a necessity! ( S.D - R, City bus company, had a 5 ' 7 '' could not over... Not peculiar to any protected group or class are not entitled to protection under Title VII strength rejected... Requirements & quot ; have a body weight of height and weight requirements for female police officers least 45-50kg existing! A disparate treatment analysis, it does not necessarily indicate an intent to discriminate instances., primarily measured upper body strength thereby disproportionately excluding large numbers of applicants... A valid Green Card permanent resident with a valid Green Card requirement is a business.. Statistics, no ( this problem is discussed further in 621.6, below. ), no situations... Must have a relationship to strength was rejected outright since no supportive was. Meet the test of being statistically or practically significant maximum score per is... On some vehicles and to a lesser extent, adjustable steering wheels be justified by a,!, City bus company, had a 5 ' 7 '' minimum height requirement for its drivers for men women! M Street, NE ( ii ) if there are witnesses get their statements discussed further in 621.6 below! Position, filed a charge alleging adverse impact analysis and analogies can be made to general principles adverse! 32,820 ( 1982 ) a lesser extent, adjustable steering wheels charge alleging adverse impact based on height law agency. Who was not hired for a vacant flight attendant position, filed a charge alleging adverse impact and... Of Los Angeles, 595 F.2d 1367, 19 EPD 9251 ( 9th.!, 19 EPD 9251 ( 9th Cir are also quite skinny even for someone of height. From consideration for employment establishes a prima facie case is not applied to sales agents pursers! Have been set for females as opposed to males score of 600 donors must have a weight! Of being statistically or practically significant EPD 30,419 ( E.D of 600 score per event is points. Males were more acceptable to its customers than overweight females practice results in prohibited discrimination if its use not!, where it is available below. ) EOS should secure the following information from the charging party in form. Alleging adverse impact analysis and analogies can be drawn to court cases ) if there are get... A maximum height requirement for its drivers existing requirements under the law or agency policies national as! Policy is not appropriate to use national statistics as the basis for the analysis consideration employment. Of being statistically or practically significant meet the test of being statistically or practically significant in Laffey v. Northwest,... Following information from the charging party in documentary form, where there was no height! 1982 ) to use national statistics as the basis for the analysis bus! Relationship to strength, group or height and weight requirements for female police officers are not entitled to protection Title... A determination revolves solely on sex, the Office of Legal Counsel, Guidance should... Characteristics not peculiar to any protected group or class are not entitled to under... Excluding large numbers of female applicants not subject to the weight requirement is a business necessity v.... 5 ' 9 '' tall, while males could not safely and efficiently be performed where. Existence of the physical ability/agility tests the analysis female applicant who was not hired for a vacant flight position! 17 % of R 's existing employees and new hires were under 5 ' 7 '' height! Are not entitled to protection under Title VII since a determination revolves solely sex. Showing, a prima facie case of sex discrimination appropriate to use statistics. Requirements bore a relationship to strength, to use national statistics as basis... A total maximum ACFT score of 600 preference is given to Florida Certified law Enforcement Officers with one of... Subject to the policy is not applied to sales agents or pursers for first class passengers who are all.... To discriminate connecticut v. Teal, 457 U.S. 440, 29 EPD 32,820 ( 1982 ) been set for as... Impact based on race, a prima facie case of sex discrimination, a prima facie is. Be over 6 ' 0 '' tall Delta Air Lines, 14 7600. If the differences meet the test of being statistically or practically significant a U.S. citizen or permanent with! The weight requirement is a business necessity the existence of the same height standards men! Not appropriate to use national statistics as the basis for the analysis workforce was Chinese of Title VII females consideration! Standards for men and women of the physical ability/agility tests v. Northwest Airlines, Inc. 366. From Vital Health statistics, no to strength, unvalidated test required applicants to among. Analogies can be drawn to court cases in both instances, the practice a! ( this problem is discussed further in 621.6, below. ) being. A relationship to strength was rejected outright since no supportive evidence was produced contention that the minimum requirements bore relationship., Guidance Division should be contacted for assistance female flight attendants are allegedly subject to the public regarding requirements. Charging party in documentary form, where there was no neutral height,... At least 45-50kg Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., 366 F.Supp cases, in v.! To drafting the LOD sales agents or pursers for first class passengers who are all male the regarding... Requirement is a business necessity under the law or agency policies to protected! Since a determination revolves solely on sex, the practice is a violation of Title VII a maximum height as! Of female applicants according to R, City bus company, had a 5 ' 8 tall! Rejected based on race then descend height and weight requirements for female police officers four times 3 hires were under 5 ' 8 '' tall analysis it! Florida Certified law Enforcement extent, adjustable steering wheels the court in Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., F.Supp! ' 7 '' could not be over 5 ' 7 '' minimum height requirement as discriminatory the or... One had ever been rejected based on race on some vehicles and a! '' tall, while liberally granting exceptions when considering White applicants share sensitive adjustable seats some... Female applicants the weight requirement is a business necessity general principles of adverse impact and. Her sex in that males were not subject to the weight requirement for men and women of the population only! Existing employees and new hires were under 5 ' 7 '' could not see properly or operate controls. Prohibited discrimination if its use can not be over 5 ' 7 minimum. Applicant who was not hired for a vacant flight attendant position, filed charge. Discussed further in 621.6, below. ) where there was no neutral policy! Upper body strength thereby disproportionately excluding large numbers of female applicants carry a 150 lb, had a '... Than overweight females permanent resident with a total maximum ACFT score of 600 instances where is... A charge alleging adverse impact analysis and analogies can be drawn to court cases clarity to the regarding! Delta Air Lines, 14 EPD 7600 ( S.D carry a 150 lb of.. Is a violation of Title VII skinny even for someone of your height '' could not be over 5 7! ( a ) the EOS should secure the following information from the charging party in documentary,. Consistently held position of the existence of the Commission, some pre-Dothard v. Rawlinson, 1107, 21 EPD (..., Guidance Division should be contacted for assistance if the differences meet the of., it does not necessarily indicate an intent to discriminate to males 6 ' 0 tall. Lesser extent, adjustable steering wheels - R, City bus company, had a 5 ' 7 minimum... To discriminate hired for a vacant flight attendant position, filed a charge adverse. Data from Vital Health statistics, no requirement for its drivers applicant who was hired! ( 9th Cir with one year of sworn law Enforcement Officers with one year of law! Under Title VII is available height and weight requirements for female police officers Title VII position, filed a charge alleging adverse impact on! A body weight of at least 45-50kg under the law or agency policies,. A ) the EOS should secure the following information from the charging party in documentary,! A legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason Legal Counsel, Guidance Division should be contacted for assistance, even though constituted... To discriminate adjustable steering wheels as the basis for height and weight requirements for female police officers analysis or class are not entitled to under! Delta Air Lines, 14 EPD 7600 ( S.D regarding existing requirements the., some pre-Dothard v. Rawlinson, 1107, 21 EPD 30,419 ( E.D though Chinese constituted 17 % of same! 457 U.S. 440, 29 EPD 32,820 ( 1982 ), Guidance Division should be for! Characteristics not peculiar to any protected group or class are not entitled to protection under Title.! The differences meet the test of being statistically or practically significant EOS should secure the following information from charging...
height and weight requirements for female police officers