In Weeks v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. (Weeks Test) the court contended that, “The wisdom of the premise of Title VII (703 (a) (1) demands that an employer should not judge the ability of a person based the characteristics of a group but should consider individual capabilities. ” also gives Joe’s case legal backing as Wyman & Rights as it was held by Court, will have to prove factually (not on assumptive or stereotype basis) that Joe and other men cannot substantially perform safely and efficiently the duties of the job involved.
In a similar case, Rosenfeld v. Southern Pacific Co. (Rosenfeld Test) that was concluded in pursuant of section 706 (f) of the Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Joe’s case has a strong likelihood of being concluded in his favor. Rosenfeld, a woman was denied a position of an agent-telegrapher by Southern Pacific Company on the basis that the post was too demanding (it involved many work-hours and involved lifting of heavy things) and therefore ‘only men’ could fit the position.
The Court in pursuant of section 703 (a) (1) of the Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that asserts, “Sexual characteristics, rather than characteristics that might, to one degree or another, correlate with a particular sex, must be the basis for the application of the BFOQ exception,” as was in the ruling of Dothard v. Rawlinson found South pacific Co. arguments short of alleging such a basis. In Dothard v. Rawlinson the court found the 5 feet 2 inches in height and 120 pounds to favor men and therefore declared the policy a contravention to 703(a) of Title VII.
As was in City of Los Angeles v. Manhart where the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power passed a policy that required women workers to make larger contributions to its pension scheme because research indicated that women tend to live longer than men, the judges found that the Department’s pension scheme had violated section 703(a) (1) of the Title VII. The Department pension scheme defense argued that the policy was pegged on longevity rather than sex; however, the Court found no other factor other than sex and hence concluded that the policy was unconstitutional.
The case will be concluded on the basis of comparison between BFOQ 703(e) and the three Test clauses. The court will weigh the weight of the arguments from both sides and the cases mentioned in this paper. As it stands, obviously the three Test clauses carries more weight relative to the nature of the job that Wyman & Rights – there is no reasonable justification for the application of the BFOQ 703(e) of the Title VII; Wyman & Rights bases their arguments on stereotyped characterizations.
My opinion however, is; based on Diaz v. Pan Am the court will definitely find Wyman & Rights hiring decision not worthy a BFOQ defense and based on customers preferences, rather than non-discriminative objective. The reasons are obvious Joe v. Wyman &Rights and Diaz v. Pan Am are similar in all perspectives; they both involve discrimination against men whereby the employer holds that women are more suitable in the performance of the core duties.
However, there is no room for demonstration of one’s personal abilities, and therefore not an issue of “essence of business” but discrimination that is based on (group) sex stereotyping. Before 1970, when attorneys Linda Coffee and Sarah Waddington on behalf of Norma L. McCorvey (Jane Roe), filed suit in the US district court of Texas, all the 50 state statutes outlawed abortion. The suit was based on the fact that McCorvey had got pregnant as a result of rape.
The defendant in the case was Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade, representing the State of Texas. The case was not concluded until 1993 by the United States Supreme Court. According to the cases concluding decision most laws against abortion in the US violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision overturned all the state and federals outlawing or restricting abortion that were incompatible with its holdings, and hence the historic legal and political controversy that it continue to wield.
In its ruling the Supreme Court held that a mother may abort her pregnancy for any reason, up until the “point at which the fetus becomes ‘viable. ’” The Court definition of viable was “potentially able to live outside the mothers womb”, although with artificial aid. They therefore placed the viability stage at around seven months (28 weeks). The court also ruled that abortion after viability must be available when needed to protect a woman’s health. Apparently the Courts decision was subject to country wide debate that seems never to end.