Module 2 Discussion – GBA-335
Prof Fisk,
The Court’s ruling was in order. Considering safety of the Airline passengers and the entire organization, it was not in the interest who is best or not but whoever meets the 50*50 airline view business necessity. The business necessity here is an evidence record to show that an individual’s ability to operate all the instruments in the cockpit and reach the design eye reference point. Individual’s height is important to the safe and efficient operation of a plane. The criteria for hiring – five-foot-seven-inch minimum height requirement is not a sexually discriminatory issue. Anybody (male or female) that meet this requirement could be hired.
In a prima facie case of sex discrimination – because the number of male with five-foot-seven-inch outnumber the female hence it could be regarded that pilots are exclusive for male hiring. In my opinion and to ensure hiring of female pilot entry, the Court had to tell Ozark to reduce the minimum height to five-foot-five-inch. An individual who fails to meet certain requirement for hiring, does not mean that ‘the employer’s general policy and practice concerning hiring should be amended to suit him/her. The criteria is job-related (cf. 29 C.F.R. §1607.5(c)(2)(iii). “The job of airline flight officer is clearly such a job”. So, the trial Court did not err in its ruling.
Ref:
Twomey, D (2013). Labor and employment law: Text and cases (15th ed). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.