Wilson v. Southwest Airlines Co.

Last updated

Wilson v Southwest Airlines
NDTX Seal.png
Court United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
Full case nameGregory Wilson et al. v Southwest Airlines Co.
Decided1981
Citation(s)517 F.Supp. 292 (N.D. Tex. 1981)
Holding
A tangential requirement for a position is not a bona fide occupational qualification as a defense for discrimination on the basis of sex.
Keywords
Employment discrimination; bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ)

Wilson v. Southwest Airlines Co., 517 F. Supp. 292 (N.D. Tex. 1981), is a US employment discrimination law case concerning bona fide occupational qualifications. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law that prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. [1] The law contains an exception for bona fide occupational qualifications, allowing businesses to hire on the basis of religion, sex, or national origin in instances where it is a qualification reasonably necessary for their operations. [1] Bona fide occupational qualifications are qualities or attributes that employers are allowed to consider when hiring employees, which would otherwise be considered illegal discrimination in other circumstances. [2]

Contents

Facts

During the 1970s, Southwest Airlines embraced a marketing strategy emphasizing “feminine spirit, fun, and sex appeal.” The airline, branding itself as the "love airline," outfitted its flight attendants in hot pants and go-go boots and provided passengers with complimentary drinks referred to as "love potions." [3] As a part of maintaining this image, Southwest exclusively hired women for flight attendant and ticketing agent positions. At the time of the case's decision, Southwest was the only major airline in the United States that refused to employ men as flight attendants and ticketing agents. [4]

Plaintiff Gregory Wilson, along with a class of over 100 male job applicants, challenged Southwest Airlines' refusal to hire men, arguing that it violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They also claimed that Southwest's height and weight requirements for flight attendants disproportionately excluded male applicants compared to female applicants. [5] In response, Southwest contended that its female employees were integral to the company's success and that their employment fell under the bona fide occupational qualification exception in Section 703(e)(1) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Judgment

The Court rejected Southwest's bona fide occupational qualification defense, finding that even though Southwest's marketing relied on sexual titillation, their decision to hire only women in certain roles was not permissible. [5] [6] The Court held that being a woman was not a necessary qualification to perform the duties required of flight attendants and ticketing agents and that Southwest's desire to continue their successful marketing campaign was not a business necessity that trumped federal law. [5] The Court reasoned that recognizing a sex based bona fide occupational qualification would lead to other employers discriminating against potential employees by using sex or sex appeal as a qualification for any job that required public facing contact where customers preferred employees of a single sex. [5] The Court held that to rule otherwise would undermine Congress’ stated purpose of preventing employers from “refusing to hire an individual based on stereotyped characterization of the sexes.” [5]

Significance

Although the analysis in Wilson treats the bona fide occupational qualification exception and the business necessity defense as one thing, the Supreme Court treated them as separate and distinct tests in United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc . [7] [8] The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has stated that bona fide occupational qualifications are not warranted in situations such as: refusal to hire a woman because of her sex based on assumptions about employment characteristics of women in general; refusal to hire an individual based on stereotyped characterizations of the sexes; and the preferences of co-workers, employers, clients or customers. [9] Some states have adopted similar laws that allow exceptions for bona fide occupational qualifications. [10] [11]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Flight attendant</span> Position in an aircrew

A flight attendant, traditionally known as a steward or stewardess ; or air host or hostess, is a member of the aircrew aboard commercial flights, many business jets and some government aircraft. Collectively called cabin crew, flight attendants are primarily responsible for passenger safety and comfort.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is legislation proposed in the United States Congress that would prohibit discrimination in hiring and employment on the basis of sexual orientation or, depending on the version of the bill, gender identity, by employers with at least 15 employees.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Equal Employment Opportunity Commission</span> United States government agency enforcing civil rights laws against workplace discrimination

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is a federal agency that was established via the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to administer and enforce civil rights laws against workplace discrimination. The EEOC investigates discrimination complaints based on an individual's race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, disability, genetic information, and retaliation for participating in a discrimination complaint proceeding and/or opposing a discriminatory practice.

Mandatory retirement also known as forced retirement,enforced retirement or compulsory retirement, is the set age at which people who hold certain jobs or offices are required by industry custom or by law to leave their employment, or retire.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967</span> United States labor law

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 is a United States labor law that forbids employment discrimination against anyone, at least 40 years of age, in the United States. In 1967, the bill was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson. The ADEA prevents age discrimination and provides equal employment opportunity under the conditions that were not explicitly covered in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The act also applies to the standards for pensions and benefits provided by employers, and requires that information concerning the needs of older workers be provided to the general public.

Disparate impact in the law of the United States refers to practices in employment, housing, and other areas that adversely affect one group of people of a protected characteristic more than another, even though rules applied by employers or landlords are formally neutral. Although the protected classes vary by statute, most federal civil rights laws consider race, color, religion, national origin, and sex to be protected characteristics, and some laws include disability status and other traits as well.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Equal employment opportunity</span> Protection of US employees from types of employment discrimination

Equal employment opportunity is equal opportunity to attain or maintain employment in a company, organization, or other institution. Examples of legislation to foster it or to protect it from eroding include the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which was established by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to assist in the protection of United States employees from discrimination. The law was the first federal law designed to protect most US employees from employment discrimination based on that employee's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Employment discrimination law in the United States derives from the common law, and is codified in numerous state, federal, and local laws. These laws prohibit discrimination based on certain characteristics or "protected categories." The United States Constitution also prohibits discrimination by federal and state governments against their public employees. Discrimination in the private sector is not directly constrained by the Constitution, but has become subject to a growing body of federal and state law, including the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Federal law prohibits discrimination in a number of areas, including recruiting, hiring, job evaluations, promotion policies, training, compensation and disciplinary action. State laws often extend protection to additional categories or employers.

In employment law, a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) (US) or bona fide occupational requirement (BFOR) (Canada) or genuine occupational qualification (GOQ) (UK) is a quality or an attribute that employers are allowed to consider when making decisions on the hiring and retention of employees—a quality that when considered in other contexts would constitute discrimination in violation of civil rights employment law. Such qualifications must be listed in the employment offering.

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), is a US employment law case by the United States Supreme Court regarding the burdens and nature of proof in proving a Title VII case and the order in which plaintiffs and defendants present proof. It was the seminal case in the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework.

Ohio Civil Rights Commission v. Dayton Christian Schools, Inc., 477 U.S. 619 (1986), reversed a lower court's decision and stated that the lower court should not have heard the case until after the Ohio Civil Rights Commission had concluded their investigation. The commission argued that the non-renewal and firing constituted unlawful sex discrimination, while the school argued that this was an ecclesiastical matter not suitable for review by civil authorities.

Disparate treatment is one kind of unlawful discrimination in US labor law. In the United States, it means unequal behavior toward someone because of a protected characteristic under Title VII of the United States Civil Rights Act. This contrasts with disparate impact, where an employer applies a neutral rule that treats everyone equally in form, but has a disadvantageous effect on some people of a protected characteristic compared to others.

Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp., 400 U.S. 542 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court landmark case in which the Court held that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an employer may not, in the absence of business necessity, refuse to hire women with pre-school-age children while hiring men with such children. It was the first sex discrimination case under Title VII to reach the Court.

Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977), was the first United States Supreme Court case in which the bona fide occupational qualifications (BFOQ) defense was used.

Employment discrimination against persons with criminal records in the United States has been illegal since enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Employers retain the right to lawfully consider an applicant's or employee's criminal conviction(s) for employment purposes e.g., hiring, retention, promotion, benefits, and delegated duties.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Paycheck Fairness Act</span> Proposed law to address the gender pay gap

The Paycheck Fairness Act is a proposed United States labor law that would add procedural protections to the Equal Pay Act of 1963 and the Fair Labor Standards Act as part of an effort to address the gender pay gap in the United States. A Census Bureau report published in 2008 stated that women's median annual earnings were 77.5% of men's earnings. Recently this has narrowed, as by 2018, this was estimated to have decreased to women earning 80-85% of men's earnings. One study suggests that when the data is controlled for certain variables, the residual gap is around 5-7%; the same study concludes that the residual is because "hours of work in many occupations are worth more when given at particular moments and when the hours are more continuous. That is, in many occupations, earnings have a nonlinear relationship with respect to hours."

In the United States, all states have passed laws that restrict age discrimination, and age discrimination is restricted under federal laws such as the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). However, it is worthy of note that age discrimination is still an issue in employment as of 2019.

County of Washington v. Gunther, 452 U.S. 161 (1981), is a United States labor law case concerning discrimination and the lower standards of protection for gender pay because of the Bennett Amendment in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, §703(h).

Johnson v. Transportation Agency, 480 U.S. 616 (1987), is the only United States Supreme Court case to address a sex-based affirmative action plan in the employment context. The case was brought by Paul Johnson, a male Santa Clara Transportation Agency employee, who was passed over for a promotion in favor of Diane Joyce, a female employee who Johnson argued was less qualified. The Court found that the plan did not violate the protection against discrimination on the basis of sex in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Corporation of Presiding Bishop v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327 (1987), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court decided that the exemption of religious organizations from the prohibition of religious discrimination in employment in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is constitutional. Appellee Arthur Frank Mayson worked for 16 years in an organization operated by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He was terminated from employment when he "failed to qualify for a temple recommend, that is, a certificate that he is a member of the Church and eligible to attend its temples." He filed suit in district court, arguing that his firing violated discrimination on the basis of religion in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The district court agreed. The case was appealed directly to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Title VII's exemption of religious organizations from the prohibition on religious discrimination, even in secular activities, did not violate the First Amendment.

References

  1. 1 2 "Unlawful employment practices, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2". uscode.house.gov. Retrieved October 21, 2021.
  2. ↑ "Bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ)". Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. Retrieved November 4, 2021.
  3. ↑ Johnston, Laurie; Thomas, Robert (May 6, 1981). "An Airline Job for Which Males Need Not Apply". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved October 21, 2021.
  4. ↑ "AROUND THE NATION; Airline Is Ordered to Hire Men in Sex-Bias Court Case". The New York Times. June 14, 1981. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved October 21, 2021.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 "Wilson v. Southwest Airlines Co., 517 F. Supp. 292, 293 (N.D. Tex. 1981)". Justia Law. Retrieved October 21, 2021.
  6. ↑ Yuracko, Kimberly (2004). "Private Nurses and Playboy Bunnies: Explaining Permissible Sex Discrimination". California Law Review. 92 (1): 147–213. doi:10.15779/Z38Z12W. PMID   15046068.
  7. ↑ Finkelstein, Tracy (1992). "Judicial and Administrative Interpretations of the Bona Fide Occupational Qualification as Applied to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act". Cleveland State Law Review. 40 (2): 217. ISSN   0009-8876.
  8. ↑ "United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991)". Justia Law. Retrieved October 22, 2021.
  9. ↑ "EEOC Compliance Manual - 625, Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications, 29 C.F.R. § 1604.2(a)(1) (1980)".
  10. ↑ "Tex. Lab. Code § 21.119". statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Retrieved October 22, 2021.
  11. ↑ "Illinois Human Rights Act, Employment 775 ILCS 5/2-104". www.ilga.gov. Retrieved October 22, 2021.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.