Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed a sex discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, brought by Carole A. Gerdom and other female flight attendants against Continental Airlines. The plaintiffs challenged a company policy that enforced strict weight requirements exclusively on female flight attendants, alleging it constituted unlawful sex discrimination. The appellate court reversed a district court's summary judgment in favor of Continental and remanded the case for trial, affirming class certification for the affected employees. The court found that the weight policy, aimed solely at female employees, amounted to disparate treatment—discrimination based on gender—without needing to compare male counterparts, since no equivalent restrictions applied to male employees. The court rejected Continental's defense that the policy was justified by customer preference and the belief that female hostesses were integral to the airline's image. The court emphasized that such gender-specific employment practices could not be justified under Title VII, stressing that customer preferences unrelated to job performance do not constitute a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason. Consequently, the court ruled that the airline's actions violated Title VII, and the plaintiff class was entitled to judgment regarding liability, paving the way for appropriate relief on remand.
Legal Issues Addressed
Bona Fide Occupational Qualificationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Continental's weight policy could not be justified as a bona fide occupational qualification due to lack of evidence showing necessity for job performance.
Reasoning: The policy could only be justified if being a thin female were proven a bona fide occupational qualification under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-2(e).
Customer Preference and Discriminationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Customer preference for female hostesses does not justify gender discrimination under Title VII.
Reasoning: Continental's suggestion that consumer preference for female hostesses justifies gender discrimination fails, as established by precedent.
Disparate Impact Theorysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that the disparate impact theory was inapplicable due to the demographic composition of flight hostesses, who were all women at the time.
Reasoning: A claim regarding Continental's weight policy was dismissed, as the policy's impact on women occurred not because it targeted them, but due to the demographic composition of flight hostesses at the time, all of whom were women.
Disparate Treatment Theorysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court held that plaintiffs established a prima facie case of disparate treatment where Continental's policy imposed weight restrictions solely on female employees.
Reasoning: The weight program at issue explicitly targets females, thus constituting prima facie discrimination without the need to compare to male employees.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Sex Discriminationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court examined whether Continental Airlines' weight policy constitutes unlawful sex discrimination against female flight attendants.
Reasoning: The core legal issue at stake is whether Continental's weight program constitutes discriminatory treatment against female flight attendants under Title VII, emphasizing that the program was specifically designed to affect only women, leading to wage and employment losses for them while exempting male employees.