Dorthard V. Rawlinson addressed two main Constitutional questions of do employment requirements that inhibit women as qualified candidates for a job create a discriminatory practice and is a woman’s decision to work in a hazardous profession preceded by the need to protect her from being harmed. The District Court had ruled in favor of Rawlinson citing that it would eliminate up to 40% of the female population and only 1% of the male population. The District Court ruled that the close contact prohibition was not allowable under Title VII and that being a male was not a necessity in an all-male prison. The Supreme Court had to decide if the District Court ruled incorrectly with the decision that it was a discriminatory practice and did violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the lower …show more content…
Some women can do the job, some cannot and some men can do the job and some cannot. I do not believe that placing height and weight standards determine if either sex can do any job and that it all depends on the person doing the job. The view by society of not wanting to put the mothers of America in harm’s way has held tight over the military. With the military standards always being behind on these types of issues, they have slowly and only recently changed to allow women to be in combat situations and in combat roles. The reasoning behind not allowing women in these positions follow the State of Alabama’s positon back in 1977, believing that women were at a greater risk of assaults and rape by the enemy. The positions of Law Enforcement and Corrections are physically and mentally tough just as in the military in which Law Enforcement is formed from but in line with my opinion some people, male or female, can do the job and some