rejecting the contention that sex was a BFOQ for airline flight attendants because the airline's proposed justification - to provide a “pleasing environment” for passengers - was merely tangential to the airline's primary objective of providing safe transportation
How later courts described this case
- rejecting the contention that sex was a BFOQ for airline flight attendants because the airline's proposed justification - to provide a “pleasing environment” for passengers - was merely tangential to the airline's primary objective of providing safe transportation
- holding that customer preference for female flight attendants does not constitute a "bona fide occupational qualification" under Title VII
- finding airline could not refuse to hire male flight attendants simply because male customers preferred the employment of female flight attendants
- rejecting an airline’s contention that “the special psychological needs of its passengers ... are better attended to by females”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, 710 F.2d 1091 (1983)
In the present ease, assuming that the trial court relied on the evidence concerning the ability of younger officers to relate to students, Diaz is clearly distinguishable.
The opinion
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
PER CURIAM:
The Petition for Rehearing is denied and no member of this panel nor Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc, (Rule 35 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Local Fifth Circuit Rule 12) the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is denied.