Opinion ID: 390545
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Bona Fide Occupational Qualification Defense

Text: 28 In view of the Stop Policy's status as per se sex discrimination, Pan Am's justifications must be evaluated in terms of the BFOQ, rather than the Business Necessity defense. See ante at 1301. The two defenses, though related and similar, are not identical. deLaurier v. San Diego Unified School District, 588 F.2d at 678. They must be distinctly applied. Cf. Burwell v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 24 Empl.Prac.Dec. (CCH) P 31,213, at 17,379 & n.15, 633 F.2d 361 (4th Cir. 1980) (suggesting that a policy justified by business necessity may not constitute a BFOQ); but cf. Burwell, 458 F.Supp. 474, 496 n.11 (E.D.Va.1978) (As a practical matter, however, the Court sees little difference between the two tests.), aff'd in part, rev'd in part and remanded, 24 Empl.Prac.Dec. (CCH) P 31,213, 633 F.2d 361 (4th Cir. 1980). 29 We join the Fourth Circuit in adopting the BFOQ standard which the Fifth Circuit developed in Usery v. Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc., 531 F.2d 224 (5th Cir. 1976); Diaz v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 442 F.2d 385 (5th Cir. 1971); and Weeks v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 408 F.2d 228 (5th Cir. 1969). Arritt v. Grisell, 567 F.2d 1267, 1271 (4th Cir. 1977). 30 According to the court's reasoning in Tamiami, 31 Diaz mandates that the job qualifications which the employer invokes to justify his discrimination must be reasonably necessary to the essence of his business The greater the safety factor, measured by the likelihood of harm and the probable severity of that harm in case of an accident, the more stringent may be the job qualifications designed to insure safe driving. 32 Tamiami, supra at 236. (Emphasis in original.) 33 The second facet of the test was enunciated in Weeks, supra at 235. 34 (A)n employer has the burden of proving that he had reasonable cause to believe, that is, a factual basis for believing, that all or substantially all women would be unable to perform safely and efficiently the duties of the job involved. 35 However, if the employer cannot make this latter showing, it can nonetheless justify a reasonable general rule by establishing that it is impossible or highly impractical to deal with women on an individualized basis. Id. at 235 n.5. 36 The district court specifically found that passenger safety was the essence of Pan Am's business. 437 F.Supp. at 434. It also found that Pan Am had satisfied the Weeks facet of the test by showing that it is 'highly impractical to deal with (pregnant flight attendants) on an individualized basis' and it has applied a 'reasonable general rule.'  437 F.Supp. at 435; cf. Burwell v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 24 Empl.Prac.Dec. (CCH) P 31,213, at 17,377 & n.6, 633 F.2d 631 (4th Cir. 1980) (holding trial court clearly wrong in its finding that pregnant flight attendants who will experience abnormal health incidents during their pregnancies can be uniformly identified prior to the onset of such incidents). The flaw in the district court's standard as it applies to the BFOQ defense is that it requires only that the policy be reasonable in light of the safety factor rather than reasonably necessary. The district court may have reasoned that the safety factor was so significant that any policy which was reasonably calculated to further safety was also reasonably necessary in light of Pan Am's strict safety obligations to the public. 37 Adoption of such a standard here would unnecessarily broaden the BFOQ defense which the Supreme Court characterized in Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321, 334, 97 S.Ct. 2720, 2729, 53 L.Ed.2d 786 (1977), as an extremely narrow exception to the general prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex. In light of the district court's factual findings regarding the significance of the safety risk involved in allowing pregnant flight attendants to continue flying, 435 F.Supp. at 420-23 & nn. 10-15, we conclude that Pan Am has shown its Stop Policy to be reasonably necessary to passenger safety. 38 Accordingly, we affirm the district court's decision that Pan Am's Stop Policy was justified as a BFOQ. 5 39