Rawlinson Case We Background - Dianne Rawlinson,

Rawlinson Case

We Background - Dianne Rawlinson, a female citizen of the state of Alabama, applied for a job as a state prison guard, but was rejected because she failed to meet a state requirement that all prison guards must be at least 5' 2" tall and weigh a minimum 120 pounds. Additionally, a state regulation prohibited women from serving as guards in maximum security institutions because that position would require direct contact with male prisoners.

The Complaint - Rawlinson filed suit with the EEOC and brought a class action suit against Alabama corrections officials in which she challenged the height/weight as well as the "close contact" regulations. Rawlinson claimed that these rules violated her civil rights under Title VII (1964) Civil Rights Act.

The Ruling - The District Court ruled in Rawlinson's favor on both counts. It took into account national statistics that outlined the comparatives heights and weights of men and women and showed that Alabama's ruling would exclude over 40% of the female population of the United States, but less than 1% of the male population. This was clear evidence of a case of discriminatory actions. On the issue of the "close proximity," the Court rejected Alabama's presumption that it was necessary to be male to perform the job duty under Title VII. The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on Alabama's behalf.

The Supreme Court -- Dothard v Rawlinson was the first U.S. Supreme Court Case in which the Bona fide occupational qualifications under Title VII was used. The Supreme Court sided with Rawlinson (8-1) that height and weight restrictions were discriminatory since there was no proof that height and weight had any bearing on the ability to adequately perform the job duties. However, on the "close contact" issue, the court ruled 6-3 that Alabama's ruling was legitimate in this case. The Court believed that in a high-stress and potentially violent atmosphere within a maximum security prison, women were likely to be more vulnerable to attack than males (U.S. Supreme Court, case 76-422; Cushman, 2001, 122-8).

Questions-

Part 1 -- Method of proving a Title VII case? There are at least three major arguments Rawlinson could use. First, there are no statistics showing that height and weight have anything to do with performance as a prison guard -- the issue of upper body strength, the ability to use martial arts or self-defense, or even expertise with firearms have nothing to do with height and weight. Second, the Court was right in gleaning statistics from the American population and finding that this rule would, in fact, be discriminatory in a large number of cases. Women tend to be built smaller, but that, on its own, has nothing to do with ability to perform this job without the State proving certain parts of the job could not be done. Finally, on the second question, just because something is possible does not mean it is likely or a certainty. A male guard of slight stature could just as easily be attacked or put into harm's way as a female.

Part 2 -- Argument from State? Alabama may have been lax in proving qualifications simply by using height and weight without direct proof that these have relevance to the job. Instead, they could set up a set of criteria in which candidates, much like firefighters, must reach certain physical condition and leave the gender issue out of it. As for the second issue, the phrasing could be changed to one of protection rather than discrimination -- with certain physical requirements necessary for the "safety" of the individual listed, as well as the safety of officers. Further, segmenting prisoner types might be another way for Alabama to mitigate this; anyone can work in maximum security, but only people with certain requirements (gender not being one) can work with sexual offenders, etc.