standard of sex discrimination is the same under Title VII Federal Civil Rights Act and analogous state statute, Cal.Lab.Code, §§ 1410-32
How later courts described this case
- standard of sex discrimination is the same under Title VII Federal Civil Rights Act and analogous state statute, Cal.Lab.Code, §§ 1410-32
- height requirement discriminates against females
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DRAPER, P. J.
We concur in the judgment, but do so solely on the basis that the evidence in this record is insufficient to support the findings and judgment..
There is no question that the regulations in effect at the time of trial were rankly discriminatory against women. They set higher standards of education and visual acuity for women than for men. As has been stipulated, however, these differences have been eliminated, and the sole question before us is whether the height and weight limitation of 5 feet 7 inches and 135 pounds, although equally applicable to men and women, in fact discriminates against females. It is quite true that statistics compiled in 1966 show that 80 percent of women fail to meet this height limit, while a like percentage of men do meet it. But these statistics cover the age group 18-70. It seems that members of the current generation are larger than their parents. The age bracket here relevant is 21-32, the age limits for admission to the police force. It may be that a far lesser disparity would be shown in this group, and the decision in this case should not bar evidence upon that subject in another action under other regulations.
Moreover, elimination of the height-weight limits must, under the same principle of equal treatment which requires it, eliminate the like requirement as to men. A factor upon which there' is neither evidence nor discussion here is that of public confidence. The police arm functions not only to protect the public, but to instill in that public confidence that it is being protected—an increasingly difficult task in these days of rising crime rates. Some nondiscriminatory minimum size requirement is entirely in order, and to the extent that the opinion in this case may be deemed to strike down all such limitation as a matter of law, we cannot agree.
Caldecott, J., * concurred.
Respondents’ petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied May 8, 1974. Burke, J., and Clark, J., were of the opinion that the petition should be granted.
Assigned by the Chairman of the Judicial Council.