Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Dothard v. Rawlinson

In Dothard v. Rawlinson (1977), the U.S. Supreme Court addressed how Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids sex discrimination in the workplace, applied to a state prison's employment policies regarding prison correctional officers. At the time, Alabama had a statute that specified that prison guards must be at least five feet, two inches tall and weigh at least 120 pounds. The plaintiff in Dothard, a female applicant for a prison correctional officer position within an Alabama maximum-security facility, alleged that this policy, although seemingly neutral with regard to gender, had a discriminatory impact in practice. Namely, women were far less likely than men to meet the state's minimum physical standards. The weight and height requirements in question disqualified about 40% of female applicants, and only 1% of male applicants. The Court held that once a plaintiff demonstrates that an employment policy has a disparate impact on the basis of sex, the burden of proof then shifts to the employer, who must show that there is a manifest relationship between the specified qualifications and the employment in question. The plaintiff would then have the opportunity to demonstrate that “other selection devices without a similar discriminatory effect would also serve the employer's legitimate interest in efficient and trustworthy workmanship.”

In Dothard v. Rawlinson, the Court ruled that the plaintiff did indeed establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination and that the state did not demonstrate the validity of using height and weight standards to measure an applicant's ability to serve as a correctional officer. As a result, the minimum height and weight requirements were held to be in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Supreme Court thus paved the way to open up employment as correctional officers to female applicants.

Gender as a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification

During the early stages of Dothard's legal attack on Alabama's height and weight requirements, the state adopted a regulation specifying that women could not work as prison guards in maximum-security facilities where they would be in “continual close physical proximity to inmates of the institution.” This regulation had the effect of screening women out of about 75% of prison guard positions. Dothard subsequently amended her claim to include the state's open use of gender as an occupational qualification. The question for the Court was whether the explicit use of gender qualifications is “reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise.” Gender in this case was deemed to be a bona fide occupational qualification that would constitute a legitimate exception to Title VII's general prohibition against sex discrimination in the workplace.

The Supreme Court's ruling that gender was a legitimate factor disabling women from certain tasks on the grounds that the “environment in Alabama's penitentiaries is a peculiarly inhospitable one for human beings of whatever sex” rescued the state from a Title VII violation. The Court pointed out that no attempt was made to segregate male sex offenders from the prison's general inmate population, and hence female guards in such institutions would likely prove unable to function effectively. In short, given Alabama's notoriously brutal prisons, the state could legitimately prohibit women from serving as prison guards in maximum-security prisons in “contact” positions.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading