The court held that Rawlinson proved a prima facie case of sex discrimination by

Question

The court held that Rawlinson proved a prima facie case of sex discrimination by showing that the state’s racially neutral height and weight restrictions to be a prison guard disparately impacted upon women. The trial court found that the height rule excluded over 32 percent of women but less than 2 percent of men. The weight requirement excluded over 22 percent of women but less than 2.5 percent of men. Together, these restrictions would exclude over 41 percent of women but less than 1 percent of men. Dothard argues that height and weight are job related, because they have a relationship to strength that is required. The court held that a strength test should be given to establish strength, rather than using height and weight, for which there was no correlation proven. Using a minimum of three sentences a) Do you agree with the court's ruling? b) Why or why not?

Explanation / Answer

I agreee with the court's ruling.

The above given statistics highlight that many potetially ideal women are excluded to become a prison guard of the given state. When there is no direct correlation between strength on one hand & height & weight on the other, then there is no rationale for imposing height & weight restrictions to be a strong prison guard. A more appropriate determining factor would be use of strength test.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse T
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.