Equal Employment Opportunities

The one-for-one promotion quota far exceeded the percentage of blacks in the trooper force, and there is no evidence in the record that such an extreme quota was effective to eradicate the effects of the Department’s delay and discrimination. The District Court has exceeded its equitable powers in devising a remedy in this case. Moreover, the rigid qouta is impermissible because it adopts an unjustified conclusion about the precise extent to which past iscrimination has lingering effects, or an unjustified prediction about what would happen in the future in the absence of continuing discrimination.

Furthermore, the District could have used other altrernatives such as appointing a trustee to develop a promotion procedure that would satisfy the terms of the decree. Dianne Rawlinson applied for the position of correctional councilor with the Alabama prison system. Rawlinson was 22- year- old and graduated with a major course of correctinal psychology. However, she was rejected for not meeting the requirement laid down in the Alabama statute.

Rawlinson filed charges against the Alabama Corrections officials with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commision challenging the height and weight requirements established in the Alabama statute, as violative of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause. Rawlinson further argued that she was denied of employment opportunity because of her gender as an effect of Administrative Regulation 204, requiring a gender criteria in assigning correction counselors. The District Court decided that the height and weight requirements had no actual relationship to the job requirements.

It also found that Regulation 204 is impermissible under Title VII as being based on stereotyped characterizations of sexes. The case was appealed in the highest court. The issues involved in this case are whether there is a prima facie case and whether statute and the regulation is violative of the Equal Protection Clause. DECISION The Supreme Court held that showing of the disproportionate impact of the height and weight standards on women based on national statistics, rather than on comparative statistics of actual applicants, sufficed to make out a prima facie case.

The appelants failed to rebut the prima facie case of discrimination by proving that the height and weight requirements are job related in that they have relationship to the strenght essential to efficient job performance. Moreover, the Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s decision that the statutory height and weight standards had a discriminatory impact on women applicants for it will exclude number of women who are qualified for the positions but lacking height and weight requirements . There were no evidence presented by the appelants that the statutory height and weight will affect the performance of the applicants.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court held that Regulation 204 explicitly discriminates against women on the basis of their sex and the regulation falls within the narrow ambit of the bona-fide-occupational-qualification exception, it appearing from the evidence that Alabama maintains a prison system where violence is the order of the day, inmate access to guards is facilitated by dormitory living arrangements, every correctional institution is understaffed, and a substantial portion of the inmate population is composed of sex offenders mixed at random with other prisoners, and that therefore the use of women guards in “contact positions” in the maximum-security male penitentiaries would pose a substantial security problem, directly linked to the sex of the prison guard. Moreover, the environment of the prison would pose a threat to a woman but it is the woman’s decision to weigh and accept the risks of employment in a “contact” position in a maximum- security male prison. The regulation was then remanded to the District Court for review. Meanwhile, in both cases, the original appelants successfully established their cause of action.

A cause of action is the fact or combination of facts that gives a person the right to seek judicial redress or relief against another (Legal Dictionary, 2008). It is also the legal theory forming the basis of a lawsuit (Legal Dictionary, 2008). There are generally three requirements to establish a cause of action. First, there must be a right. Second, the right must be violated and lastly, the right violated shall be actionable or is protected by law. In both cases, the original petitioners have right to equality as established by the Equal Protecton Clause. The right to equal protection extends to the right of the citizen to have equal access to employment.

The equal protection clause also impliedly prohibits discrimination of any citizen of the United States. In both cases, their right granted by the Equal Protction Clause was vilated. Rawlinson, and other women she represented, were discriminated by their gender while Paradise, and the blacks he represented, were discriminated as to their race. CONCLUSION The very essence of the Equal Protection Clause is to ensure that the federal and state laws applied to all citizens of United States does not, in any manner, discriminate any person, regardless of their race, gender, status, and religion.

Through time, it has become as the foundation of United State’s democracy and rule of law (Usinfo. state. gov, 2008). In Paradise v. Allen, the District Court’s orders was affirmed by the Supreme Court as a means to stop the promotion procedures being practiced that amounted to discrimination. The Supreme Court also declared the Alabama statute that laid down the hiring procedure for correction personnel as unconstitional because the statute has excluded women on the basis of height and weight which has no connection with the job performance. The Supreme Court also questioned the Regulation 204 as being discriminatory to women. In both cases, the lifting and recognizing of the rights of the woman and the blacks has ended the long and rampant discrimination practice. These landmark cases has opened a wider employment opportunity for women and blacks and other minority groups.

Further, the decision has build their self- confidence in proving their abilities and capabilities like the whites can prove.


Finduslaw. (2008). Civil Rights Act of 1964 – CRA – Title VII – Equal Employment Opportunities – 42 US Code Chapter 21. Retrieved May 6, 2008, from http://finduslaw. com/civil_rights_act_of_1964_cra_title_vii_equal_employment_opportunities_42_us_code_chapter_21 Guerin, L. , Delpo, A. , (2006). The Essential Guide to Federal Employment Laws. New York: Nolo. Legal Dictionary. (2008). Cause of Action. Retrieved May 6, 2008, from http://legal- dictionary. thefreedictionary. com/cause+of+action Nelson, W. E. (1988). The Fourteenth Ammendment: From political Principle to Judicial Doctrine. New York: Harvard University Press.