Dianne Rawlinson, a female applicant who was rejected for employment as a prison guard in the Alabama prison system, challenged certain state rules restricting her employment prospects under Title VII. They were (1) requirements that all prison employees be at least 5 feet 2 inches tall and weigh at least 120 pounds, and (2) a rule expressly prohibiting women from assuming close-contact prison guard positions in maximum-security prisons (most of which were all male).
What method of proving a Title VII case should Rawlinson use in attacking the height and weight requirements? Does she need to use one of these methods to attack the second rule? What argument should the state use if Rawlinson establishes that the height and weight requirements have an adverse impact? What Title VII defense might the state have for the second rule? With regard to the second rule, assume that at this time Alabama's maximum-security prisons housed their male prisoners barracks-style rather than putting them in cells, and that they did not separate sex offenders from other prisoners.
The method that Rawlinson should use in attacking the height and weight requirements is that even though the height and weight standards are overly neutral, these standards help select persons in a manner that is discriminatory against women. Title VII disallows discrimination based on sex. Now, Rawlinson does not need to use this method to challenge the second rule because it expressly prohibits women from assuming close-contact prison guard positions in maximum-security prisons. So, in case of rule 2 a direct appeal needs to be made that ...
This response presents a brilliant discussion on Title VII case