# Hardy v. Stumpf

> California Court of Appeal · March 15, 1974 · 37 Cal. App. 3d 958

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9732312

## Case

- **Full name:** VERAGENE HARDY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WILLIAM F. STUMPF Et Al., Defendants and Respondents
- **Court:** California Court of Appeal
- **Decided:** March 15, 1974
- **Citations:** 37 Cal. App. 3d 958; 112 Cal. Rptr. 739; 7 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 9309; 7 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1091; 1974 Cal. App. LEXIS 1189
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Draper
- **Judges:** Brown, Draper
- **Cited by:** 19 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9732312

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9732312. Public record. Not legal advice.