Dothard v. Rawlinson

Dothard v. Rawlinson
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued April 19, 1977 Decided June 27, 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
Holding
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an employer may not, in the absence of business necessity, set height and weight restrictions which have a disproportionately adverse effect on one gender.
Court membership
Chief Justice Warren E. Burger Associate Justices William J. Brennan, Jr. · Potter Stewart Byron White · Thurgood Marshall Harry Blackmun · Lewis F. Powell, Jr. William Rehnquist · John P. Stevens
Case opinions
Majority	Stewart, joined by Burger, Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist, Stevens
Concurrence	Rehnquist, joined by Burger, Blackmun
Concur/dissent	Marshall, joined by Brennan
Dissent	White

Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977), was the first United States Supreme Court case which the bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQ) defense was used.

Background

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.

Opinion of the Court

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.

External links

• Text of the decision from Findlaw.com