Wilson v. Southwest Airlines Co.

Wilson v. Southwest Airlines Co., 517 F. Supp. 292 (N.D. Tex. 1981), is a US employment discrimination law case concerning bona fide occupational qualifications. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law that prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.[1] The law contains an exception for bona fide occupational qualifications, allowing businesses to hire on the basis of religion, sex, or national origin in instances where it is a qualification reasonably necessary for their operations.[1] Bona fide occupational qualifications are qualities or attributes that employers are allowed to consider when hiring employees, which would otherwise be considered illegal discrimination in other circumstances.[2]

Wilson v Southwest Airlines
CourtUnited States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
Full case nameGregory Wilson et al. v Southwest Airlines Co.
Decided1981
Citation(s)517 F.Supp. 292 (N.D. Tex. 1981)
Holding
A tangential requirement for a position is not a bona fide occupational qualification as a defense for discrimination on the basis of sex.
Keywords
Employment discrimination; bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ)

Facts

During the 1970s, Southwest Airlines embraced a marketing strategy emphasizing “feminine spirit, fun, and sex appeal.” The airline, branding itself as the "love airline," outfitted its flight attendants in hot pants and go-go boots and provided passengers with complimentary drinks referred to as "love potions."[3] As a part of maintaining this image, Southwest exclusively hired women for flight attendant and ticketing agent positions. At the time of the case's decision, Southwest was the only major airline in the United States that refused to employ men as flight attendants and ticketing agents.[4]

Plaintiff Gregory Wilson, along with a class of over 100 male job applicants, challenged Southwest Airlines' refusal to hire men, arguing that it violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They also claimed that Southwest's height and weight requirements for flight attendants disproportionately excluded male applicants compared to female applicants.[5] In response, Southwest contended that its female employees were integral to the company's success and that their employment fell under the bona fide occupational qualification exception in Section 703(e)(1) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Judgment

The Court rejected Southwest's bona fide occupational qualification defense, finding that even though Southwest's marketing relied on sexual titillation, their decision to hire only women in certain roles was not permissible.[5][6] The Court held that being a woman was not a necessary qualification to perform the duties required of flight attendants and ticketing agents and that Southwest's desire to continue their successful marketing campaign was not a business necessity that trumped federal law.[5] The Court reasoned that recognizing a sex based bona fide occupational qualification would lead to other employers discriminating against potential employees by using sex or sex appeal as a qualification for any job that required public facing contact where customers preferred employees of a single sex.[5] The Court held that to rule otherwise would undermine Congress’ stated purpose of preventing employers from “refusing to hire an individual based on stereotyped characterization of the sexes.”[5]

Significance

Although the analysis in Wilson treats the bona fide occupational qualification exception and the business necessity defense as one thing, the Supreme Court treated them as separate and distinct tests in United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc.[7][8] The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has stated that bona fide occupational qualifications are not warranted in situations such as: refusal to hire a woman because of her sex based on assumptions about employment characteristics of women in general; refusal to hire an individual based on stereotyped characterizations of the sexes; and the preferences of co-workers, employers, clients or customers.[9] Some states have adopted similar laws that allow exceptions for bona fide occupational qualifications.[10][11]

See also

References
  1. "Unlawful employment practices, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2". uscode.house.gov. Retrieved October 21, 2021.
  2. "Bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ)". Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. Retrieved November 4, 2021.
  3. Johnston, Laurie; Thomas, Robert (May 6, 1981). "An Airline Job for Which Males Need Not Apply". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved October 21, 2021.
  4. "AROUND THE NATION; Airline Is Ordered to Hire Men in Sex-Bias Court Case". The New York Times. June 14, 1981. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved October 21, 2021.
  5. "Wilson v. Southwest Airlines Co., 517 F. Supp. 292, 293 (N.D. Tex. 1981)". Justia Law. Retrieved October 21, 2021.
  6. Yuracko, Kimberly (2004). "Private Nurses and Playboy Bunnies: Explaining Permissible Sex Discrimination". California Law Review. 92 (1): 147–213. doi:10.15779/Z38Z12W. PMID 15046068.
  7. Finkelstein, Tracy (1992). "Judicial and Administrative Interpretations of the Bona Fide Occupational Qualification as Applied to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act". Cleveland State Law Review. 40 (2): 217. ISSN 0009-8876.
  8. "United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991)". Justia Law. Retrieved October 22, 2021.
  9. "EEOC Compliance Manual - 625, Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications, 29 C.F.R. § 1604.2(a)(1) (1980)".
  10. "Tex. Lab. Code § 21.119". statutes.capitol.texas.gov. Retrieved October 22, 2021.
  11. "Illinois Human Rights Act, Employment 775 ILCS 5/2-104". www.ilga.gov. Retrieved October 22, 2021.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.