Yes, in this specific, terrible situation, it's okay to ban women. Normally, this would be illegal. But Alabama's men's prisons were so violent and out of control that having a female guard would create a huge safety risk for everyone. Her presence as a woman, in that specific 'jungle,' could be targeted and would get in the way of her main job: keeping the prison secure. However, the court also agreed the height and weight rules were illegal because the prison couldn't prove they were actually necessary.

Yes, I agree with the result. The state did a bad job arguing for its height and weight rules. If they had argued that guards need to *look* strong to intimidate prisoners, not just be strong, they might have won that part of the case.

No, this is wrong and backward. The only reason the prison is so dangerous is because the state is running it illegally and inhumanely. The Court is letting the state use its own failures as an excuse to discriminate against women. This is like saying two wrongs make a right and relies on the old, sexist idea that women cause sexual violence just by being present.

We shouldn't even be discussing the 'no women guards' rule. The case shouldn't have gotten this far. Using national statistics about women's height doesn't prove that the specific women who want to be prison guards in Alabama are being unfairly blocked. There was no real proof of discrimination to begin with.

The Court said Alabama's height and weight rules did discriminate against women and weren't actually needed to do the job, so they broke the law. But in the specific situation of Alabama's really dangerous, messy, understaffed men's prisons, the Court said it was okay to allow only men to work closely with prisoners because a female guard's ability to keep control and be safe could be hurt by the fact that she's a woman.

Justice Rehnquist agreed Rawlinson showed the rules were unfair using general facts about men and women, and Alabama didn't prove otherwise. But he said if Alabama had argued it needed guards to look strong, not just be strong, it might have won. He also said more specific facts about who actually applied for guard jobs could have changed the result.

Justice Marshall agreed the height and weight rules were unfair to women but strongly disagreed that prisons could say only men could work closely with prisoners. He said a prison's bad conditions can't be an excuse for discrimination. He thought the decision wrongly assumed women guards would cause problems just by being women. He worried this could make it much harder for women to be treated equally at work.

Justice White wasn't sure the general facts about men and women proved discrimination, since Rawlinson didn't show the rules would actually keep out many women who wanted to be guards in Alabama. He said if there was no discrimination, the Court shouldn't have even looked at whether only men could do the job, and he disagreed with the final decision.

The bfoq exception in Title VII "was... meant to be an extremely narrow exception to the general prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex."

—the Court held that generalized national statistics showing that the statutory weight and height requirements would exclude proportionately more women than men were sufficient to establish a prima facie case; it specifically rejected the employer's contention that a statistical showing of disproportionate impact must be based on analysis of the characteristics of actual …

—the Supreme Court held that the male gender was a BFOQ for prison guards in Alabama's maximum-security men's prisons.

Although we stated that the employment practice in question must be shown to be " `necessary to safe and efficient job performance,'"

—invalidating Alabama's height and weight requirements for prison guards that have the effect of excluding the majority of female candidates

It takes no expertise to comprehend that some people "might be discouraged from applying because of a self-recognized inability to meet the [opening's] standards."

"To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, a plaintiff need only show that the facially neutral standards in question select applicants for hire in a significantly discriminatory pattern."

—for example, the Supreme Court observed that "[t] here is no requirement... that a statistical showing of disproportionate impact must always be based on analysis of the characteristics of actual applicants."

Under title VII, an employer policy (or a provision of a collective agreement) that is neutral on its face, but has a disproportionate effect upon one of the classes protected by that Act, constitutes an unlawful employment practice unless it can be justified by overriding business necessity

For purposes of this litigation, respondents concede that gender is a bona fide occupational qualification for some of the female guard positions.

Yes. The regulation falls within the narrow bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) exception. While the BFOQ exception is extremely narrow and must not be based on stereotypes, the specific factual circumstances of Alabama's prison system justify the sex-based restriction. The Court reasoned that the 'jungle atmosphere' and rampant violence, combined with the presence of unsegregated sex offenders, would make a woman's very womanhood a direct threat to her ability to maintain prison security, which is the essence of a correctional counselor's job. The likelihood of sexual assault against a female guard would pose a substantial security problem for the guard, other staff, and inmates, undermining the entire security function. The Court separately affirmed that the height and weight requirements constituted disparate impact discrimination because the state failed to produce any evidence showing they were job-related.

Yes. The regulation is a valid BFOQ, and the state failed to rebut the prima facie case against its height and weight requirements. However, the state's failure on the height and weight issue was due to its weak legal justification. The state only argued that the requirements correlated with physical strength. Had the state argued that the requirements were necessary for the 'appearance of strength' to psychologically deter inmates, the district court might have reached a different result.

No. The regulation does not qualify as a BFOQ and constitutes unlawful sex discrimination. The majority's reasoning amounts to saying 'two wrongs make a right' by allowing the prison's unconstitutional and inhumane conditions to justify discrimination. The BFOQ exception requires a qualification to be necessary for the 'normal operation' of a business, and a prison operating in blatant violation of the Eighth Amendment is not 'normal.' The decision relies on the insidious myth that women are seductive sexual objects who provoke assault, thereby punishing women for the potential depraved conduct of male inmates.

Does not reach the issue. Rawlinson failed to make out a prima facie case of sex discrimination regarding the height and weight requirements, making it unnecessary to consider the BFOQ for contact positions. The reliance on generalized national statistics is unconvincing without evidence showing that the actual applicant pool for Alabama prison guards reflects the national population. There was no proof that a large percentage of women seriously interested in these jobs would fail to meet the requirements.

The Court held that the statutory height and weight requirements discriminate against women and are not job-related, violating Title VII. Statistics showed the requirements would exclude over 40% of U.S. women but less than 1% of men, establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. Alabama failed to prove the requirements were necessary for job performance. However, in the particular circumstances of Alabama's violent, disorganized, understaffed maximum-security male prisons, the Court found that being male is a BFOQ for contact positions because a guard's sex could directly undermine her ability to maintain prison security.

Justice Rehnquist agreed that Rawlinson established a prima facie case of discrimination using general population statistics, which Alabama failed to rebut, but noted that more relevant applicant pool data could have led to a different result. He emphasized that if Alabama had argued the height and weight requirements were needed for the appearance of strength rather than actual strength, the outcome may have been different.

Justice Marshall agreed that the height and weight requirements discriminated against women but strongly disagreed that being male is a BFOQ in prisons. He argued a prison's poor conditions cannot justify sex discrimination and that the real disqualifying factor was gender itself based on stereotypes about women. The BFOQ ruling relied on the impermissible assumption that women's mere presence would provoke sexual assaults. He feared the majority opinion, if expanded, would seriously hinder women's equal employment opportunities.

Justice White was not convinced that national height and weight statistics alone established a prima facie case of discrimination, absent evidence that the requirements would actually exclude many interested women applicants in Alabama. Without proof of discrimination, he would not have reached the BFOQ issue and dissented from the judgment affirming the lower court.

Dothard v. Rawlinson

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot