4 ms·

Ok, but then the US Air Force would not hire anyone shorter than 64 inches or taller than 77 inches. Your height is a part of your genetics, you can't change it

Ok, but then the US Air Force would not hire anyone shorter than 64 inches or taller than 77 inches. Your height is a part of your genetics, you can't change it. Why are people outside of this range not protected? Am I oversimplifying something here?

ceejayoz 4y ago
> Why are people outside of this range not protected? Because legislation has been written to target certain characteristics. The experience of short people in American history doesn't quite match that of black, gay, or disabled people, and thus it hasn't been legislated.
- aidenn0 4y ago
  If there weren't a BFOQ then this could be seen as veiled sex discrimination since women are shorter than men on average.
oceanplexian 4y ago
They are called bona fide occupational qualifications. Even a private business can discriminate against say, an actor who can’t play a particular role due to the race or gender of the character. Same goes with certain jobs that involve lifting or an expected level physical fitness.
- michpoch 4y ago
  Could you say that you need a white male bartender for your pub in rural Texas, because your customers are racist and sexist and anyone else would make them feel uncomfortable? Or would that "choice" be limited by the protected status?
  - LarryMullins 4y ago
    Race can never be a BFOQ except in the specific case of artistic works, due to the first amendment.
    - aidenn0 4y ago
      In addition, mere customer satisfaction secondary to the primary job is not enough to establish BFOQ; it's a thin line though as Hooters seems to hide behind BFOQ (thus essentially stating that the primary reason for their serving staff is sex appeal), while flight attendants cannot. I suppose if you had an airline called "cleavage air" and had all the flight attendants wear low-cut tops, then you might get away with it.
      - LarryMullins 4y ago
        Indeed. The law says that sex is characteristic that may be a BFOQ, and in the case of Hooters it seems to be. BFOQs may apply to sex, religion, and national origin, but not the other protected classes.
        michpoch 4y ago
        Could Hooters then reject a woman based on visual trait connected to a race, arguing that it doesn't give her the required "sex appeal"? Skin colour would be of course to obvious, but lips size or body shape?
        LarryMullins 4y ago
        No. The only way Hooters could in principle discriminate on the basis of race is if they come up with some first amendment pretext for it; e.g. the waitress job is actually an artistic performance and for some reason the art demands the performer be a certain race. That works for movie productions, but for a bar hiring waitresses? In practice it wouldn't work because the courts and the public would both write you off as an obvious racist.
      - michpoch 4y ago
        That is quite fascinating to me (as a layperson and non-american). Are there any articles or is there any literature that you'd advise in that topic? I'd be interested in something that gives more context, details and examples than the wikipedia article, but not targeted at lawyers and not excessively long. How does that work in practice for a company like Hooters - do they spend millions on lawyers to be able to defend their position? What if you'd open a local place working in similar way to Hooters - would you go bankrupt trying to defend yourself?
  - unethical_ban 4y ago
    Look up the definition of the term "bona fide" and tell me if you think that would qualify as a good faith requirement allowing a business to discriminate their workers.
  - unreal37 4y ago
    Hooters hires "performers", not waitresses. So this is indeed how it works.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
aidenn0 4y ago
Many reasons that's not protected: 1. The "Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act" specifically bans using "Genetic Information" in certain circumstances, which is generally understood to mean e.g. DNA testing. Discriminating on height does not fall into this. 2. You could still fall into issues with e.g. the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by having a height requirement if e.g. far more men than women fall into that height range, however there are exceptions[A] built into that act when a job has specific requirements, one being you can ask for "male models" to model clothing targeted at men. A: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_occupational_qualification#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_occupational_qualifi...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

ceejayoz 4y ago

> Why are people outside of this range not protected? Because legislation has been written to target certain characteristics. The experience of short people in American history doesn't quite match that of black, gay, or disabled people, and thus it hasn't been legislated.

aidenn0 4y ago
If there weren't a BFOQ then this could be seen as veiled sex discrimination since women are shorter than men on average.

oceanplexian 4y ago

They are called bona fide occupational qualifications. Even a private business can discriminate against say, an actor who can’t play a particular role due to the race or gender of the character. Same goes with certain jobs that involve lifting or an expected level physical fitness.

michpoch 4y ago
Could you say that you need a white male bartender for your pub in rural Texas, because your customers are racist and sexist and anyone else would make them feel uncomfortable? Or would that "choice" be limited by the protected status?
- LarryMullins 4y ago
  Race can never be a BFOQ except in the specific case of artistic works, due to the first amendment.
  - aidenn0 4y ago
    In addition, mere customer satisfaction secondary to the primary job is not enough to establish BFOQ; it's a thin line though as Hooters seems to hide behind BFOQ (thus essentially stating that the primary reason for their serving staff is sex appeal), while flight attendants cannot. I suppose if you had an airline called "cleavage air" and had all the flight attendants wear low-cut tops, then you might get away with it.
    - LarryMullins 4y ago
      Indeed. The law says that sex is characteristic that may be a BFOQ, and in the case of Hooters it seems to be. BFOQs may apply to sex, religion, and national origin, but not the other protected classes.
      - michpoch 4y ago
        Could Hooters then reject a woman based on visual trait connected to a race, arguing that it doesn't give her the required "sex appeal"? Skin colour would be of course to obvious, but lips size or body shape?
        LarryMullins 4y ago
        No. The only way Hooters could in principle discriminate on the basis of race is if they come up with some first amendment pretext for it; e.g. the waitress job is actually an artistic performance and for some reason the art demands the performer be a certain race. That works for movie productions, but for a bar hiring waitresses? In practice it wouldn't work because the courts and the public would both write you off as an obvious racist.
    - michpoch 4y ago
      That is quite fascinating to me (as a layperson and non-american). Are there any articles or is there any literature that you'd advise in that topic? I'd be interested in something that gives more context, details and examples than the wikipedia article, but not targeted at lawyers and not excessively long. How does that work in practice for a company like Hooters - do they spend millions on lawyers to be able to defend their position? What if you'd open a local place working in similar way to Hooters - would you go bankrupt trying to defend yourself?
- unethical_ban 4y ago
  Look up the definition of the term "bona fide" and tell me if you think that would qualify as a good faith requirement allowing a business to discriminate their workers.
- unreal37 4y ago
  Hooters hires "performers", not waitresses. So this is indeed how it works.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

aidenn0 4y ago

Many reasons that's not protected: 1. The "Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act" specifically bans using "Genetic Information" in certain circumstances, which is generally understood to mean e.g. DNA testing. Discriminating on height does not fall into this. 2. You could still fall into issues with e.g. the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by having a height requirement if e.g. far more men than women fall into that height range, however there are exceptions[A] built into that act when a job has specific requirements, one being you can ask for "male models" to model clothing targeted at men. A: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_occupational_qualification#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bona_fide_occupational_qualifi...

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]