Case Study
BUSI 301 LUO
April 18th, 2016
Megan Wickham

Part one:
After reading all the details in the Landmark Case 13.4 Diaz v. Pan Am World Airways, Inc. I would have to agree with the court. Mr. Diaz was denied a flight attendant job with the airline because he is a male and that goes against the airline’s policy which states only a female may be a flight attendant. As the case goes to says, Mr. Diaz then filed a complaint with EEOC. His complaint was simply that the airline’s policy was a direct violation of Title VII; discriminating against him based on his gender. From an ethical standpoint and biblical standpoint this is just wrong. The Bible says, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28 NKJV).

Pan Am had then argued that gender was a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) for flight attendant positions. Pan Am also argued that passengers preferred women as flight attendants and customer preference in this case should also be considered” (Melvin & Katz, 2015, p. 386). The airline used such information as a nondiscriminatory reason for not hiring Mr. Diaz and as a way to provide, in their opinion, a legally recognizable defense. The airline continued to base and defend their decision of not hiring a male flight attendant as a result of employment policy as business necessity.

Although the trail court found in favor for Pan Am, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the ruling and held in favor of Mr. Diaz. The court ultimately rejected Pan Am’s arguments ruling that EEOC guidelines require that BFOQ defenses based on gender to be interpreted narrowly (Melvin & Katz, 2015, p. 386). The court also ruled that customer preference for a certain gender is not consistent with the EEOC’s guidelines. The airline had apparently failed to prove that men could not safely and efficiently perform the job duties of a flight attendant. With the ruling in regards to customer preference, the court felt that gender was not a factor that would alter one’s judgment om safe transportation. Point being, the function of an airline to get customers from point A to point B.

The final ruling of the Diaz v. Pan Am Airlines case had a legal impact that stands today. The Fifth Circuit Court’s decision to revers the ruling to the favor of Diaz set in motion a change to the broad interpretation to a more narrowly defined understanding of BFOQ.

Part two:
!. If customers truly overwhelmingly preferred one gender over another in certain jobs, is it fair or appropriate to force the public to be uncomfortable or unhappy in order to prevent sexual discrimination?

If customers truly preferred one gender over another in certain jobs, then I would say that it is not unfair to force the public to deal with it. It is almost a double ended sword; one group or another would be unhappy. Other than certain situations I would say if the applicant fits the job description and requirements than it should not matter what sex they are. People in the public will be unhappy with something else, they will always find something to complain about.

2. Why did the court decide that sex was not a BFOQ to qualify as a flight attendant?

The court came to the decision that the primary purpose is to get each person from point a to point b in a safe manner. Just saying that customers prefer women over men does not work since EEOC guidelines state that “a BFOQ should not be based on the refusal to hire an individual because of preferences of co-workers….. or customers” (Melvin & Katz, 2015 p386). It would seem as though they came to this conclusion since this situation is not an example of where it is a valid requirement. “Two examples of where this is a valid requirement are cases where a women’s clothing company hires only female models to model women’s clothing and churches only hiring members of their religion for clergy positions” (Finders, 2015).

3. Would the decision be the same if, instead of sex, the BFOQ was based on race, national origin, or religion? Why or why not?

I would say no. The court’s final decision would remain the same however, federal anti-discrimination statues allow employers to hire on the basis of religion or national origin only in instances where it can be classified as a BFOQ that is necessary to the business’s everyday operations. The BFOQ would not rationalize the choice not to hire an applicant based on race, religion, or national origin.

4. Whether sex discrimination can be a BFOQ is interpreted narrowly by the EEOC, whose guidelines were adopted by the circuit court. Identify situations in which sex could be defended successfully as a BFOQ.

Situations in which sex could be defended successfully as a BFOQ would include if it is necessary for the purpose of authenticity. The employer must still be able to prove that no other applicant, of the opposite sex, could effectively perform the job. One example would be excluding females’ actors from auditioning for a male role. Another example would be models; it would not be appropriate for males to model female clothing for the designers.

Reference:

Bible NKJV

Finders, L. (2015, February 11). Is It Ever Legal to Only Hire One Gender? –Industrial and Temporary Staffing Agency. Retrieved April 18, 2016, from Compliance, http://blog.laborfinders.com/is-it-ever-legal-to-only-hire-one-gender/

Melvin, S. P., Town, E., Katz, M. A., & State, D. (2014). The legal environment of business: A managerial approach: Theory to practice (2nd ed.). United States: McGraw-Hill Inc., US.