Opinion ID: 1927753
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ)

Text: The Superior Court also rejected A-P-A's BFOQ defense, and properly so. It is unlawful to discriminate against the handicapped in hiring unless that discrimination is based on a bona fide occupational qualification. 5 M.R.S.A. § 4572 (1979). The BFOQ defense permits an employer to discriminate against an entire class of employees without requiring any individual assessment of each employee's abilities. Maine Human Rights Commission v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., 458 A.2d at 1231-32 (emphasis added). To prevail on that defense, A-P-A was required to prove by a preponderance of the evidence both (1) that the essence of the business operation requires the discriminatory practice and (2) that it had a factual basis to believe that all or substantially all persons in the excluded category would be unable to safely or efficiently perform the duties of the job involved. Id. at 1232. A-P-A failed to meet the evidentiary burden of establishing a BFOQ as an affirmative defense. The Superior Court specifically found, the better medical evidence is that persons of the age, physical condition and work history of plaintiffs run no greater risk of lower back injury than persons with completely negative lower back x-rays. There was no evidence which came close to establishing that all or substantially all persons with the conditions of either plaintiff would be unable to safely or effectively perform the duties of the truck driving job. On this record we find no reason to disturb that finding of fact. See M.R.Civ. P. 52(a).