Question

In: Psychology

Research Dothard v. Rawlinson and discuss the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. Do you agree...

Research Dothard v. Rawlinson and discuss the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. Do you agree with their reasoning?

Solutions

Expert Solution

Rawlinson , being a graduate in prison pschology, applied for a job of prison guard in Alabama department of correction.However, she did not met the minimum weight criterio of 120 pounds. She then complained to the district court under Title VII, on behalf of similar women, alleging a sex-based discrimination. Meanwhile, this case was pending, Alabama issued a new regulation, where it banned women all together in contact position role in prison that require close proximity to inmates. Rawlinson amended her complain to include a challenge to new rule as well.

District court decided in favor of Rawlinson, based on the evidence that height and weight factor led to exclusion of 41 % women nationally. It also held that making a ban on one sex altogether is also discriminatory.
In appellate, SC directly heard this case and judgment partially upheld and partially reversed district court judgment.
SC court agreed to district court logic that weight and height requirement cannot be justified to be necessary for performing counseling task in prison.

The “contact position” ban was a bona fide occupational qualification, however, so Title VII did not prohibit it. The Court held that having women in these positions would create substantial security and safety problems. Alabama prison housed most grave criminals, many including sex offender and job role of contact prison required close scrutiny of inmates. Thus, it posed a great danger and risk if women are given role. So the court justified the ban on women for contact prison Role.
Yes, I do agree with the reasoning of court that. Any discrimination or requirement must be proved to be job-related. Height and weight requirement could not be proved to be job-related for the position of counseling guard so it was discriminatory. while contact position was dangerous for women, thus banning them is not discriminatory and violative of Title VII.


Related Solutions

Do you agree with the supreme court that the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1996 was a violation...
Do you agree with the supreme court that the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1996 was a violation of constitutional rights? Why or why not?
Do you agree with the argument of the appellate buyer or the argument of the state supreme court? Why?
A seller agreed to give a buyer the first right to purchase the remainder of her property if she chose to sell it. When the seller died, the buyer filed suit against the estate, seeking the option to purchase. The two parties entered into a settlement agreement that was disapproved by the probate court. After the probate court's disapproval, the parties continued to attempt to negotiate a sale. They then entered into a second settlement agreement that was never signed....
In Griswold v. Connecticut, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that “specific guarantees in the Bill of...
In Griswold v. Connecticut, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that “specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.” 1. Discuss the meaning and implications of Griswold’s penumbras and emanations 2. Describe the legal basis for an unenumerated right that might be located within these purported constitutional regions.
Post in this Forum as follows: Do you agree or disagree with the U.S. Supreme Court's...
Post in this Forum as follows: Do you agree or disagree with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the Berghuis v. Thompkins case (textbook, 157 - 159)? Is the majority or the dissenting opinion more convincing? Please explain. Comment on classmate postings
In Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), the U.S. Supreme Court decided...
In Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), the U.S. Supreme Court decided a case in which landowners challenged the power of a city in Connecticut to take their property for redevelopment. The redevelopment plan did not contemplate that all of the land would be open to the public. Parts would be privately developed. The plaintiffs alleged that the taking was unconstitutional because it was not for a public purpose. The Supreme Court rejected this claim. Use...
14 ) In U.S. Term Limits v Thornton, the Supreme Court ruled that the age, residency,...
14 ) In U.S. Term Limits v Thornton, the Supreme Court ruled that the age, residency, and citizenship requirements set forth in the Constitution were a complete statement of Congressional eligibility standards and that the only way to add any eligibility requirements would be through a constitutional amendment. True or False 15) Each state is given a number of Electoral College votes equal to its combined number of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate. True or...
In Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball , Do you agree with the Court that the actions...
In Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball , Do you agree with the Court that the actions of the Company created an offer that was open to be accepted by Ms. Carlill? Do you agree with the concept of "Invitation to Treat"?
In the Brown decision, the U.S. Supreme Court Decided that segregated public schools violated the 14th...
In the Brown decision, the U.S. Supreme Court Decided that segregated public schools violated the 14th Amendment. Explain their reasoning.
United States v. Bailey United States Supreme Court 444 U.S. 394 (1980)
United States v. Bailey United States Supreme Court 444 U.S. 394 (1980)
Tax Court decisions determined in Johnson v. United States. Do you agree or disagree with the...
Tax Court decisions determined in Johnson v. United States. Do you agree or disagree with the Tax Court's decision? Why or why not?.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT