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