Opinion ID: 351538
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The 5 Foot, 7 Inch Height Requirement

Text: 17 Among the other of defendants' practices challenged by the plaintiffs was the 5'7 height requirement. In Dothard v. Rawlinson, --- U.S. ----, 97 S.Ct. 2720, 53 L.Ed.2d 786 (1977), the Supreme Court held that Title VII forbids the use of height requirements which have discriminatory effect unless the employer meets the burden of showing that (the) requirement (has) . . . a manifest relation to the employment in question. Id. at 2726, quoting Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 432, 91 S.Ct. 849, 28 L.Ed.2d 158 (1971). 18 Here there can be no question that the 5'7 height requirement has discriminatory impact. The parties stipulated that 41% Of the otherwise eligible Mexican-American applicants are excluded by the requirement. 15 The defendants further conceded that no scientifically approved test has been utilized to determine whether the height requirement is in fact job-related. The only testimony in the record on point is that of Chief Stanley E. Barlow, himself only 5'8 , who testified that he believed a small man might have difficulty working with taller men in removing long ladders and other equipment and might have a slower reaction time in climbing on and off equipment. Chief Barlow conceded that in the past firemen under 5'7 have been able to function without impairment due to their height. 16 19 It seems clear to us that this testimony falls far short of validating a height requirement which has a serious impact in restricting Mexican-American employment in the County Fire Department. 17 The district court did not have the benefit of Dothard, supra, and, therefore, did not apply the standard of proof required by that case. The evidence introduced was inadequate to meet the Dothard requirement that the height restriction was manifestly related to employment by the Fire Department. Accordingly, the district court's finding of job-relatedness must be reversed.