Document: 400 U.S. 542 91 S.Ct. 496 27 L.Ed.2d 613 Ida PHILLIPS, Petitioner,v.MARTIN MARIETTA CORPORATION. No. 73. Argued Dec. 9, 1970. Decided Jan. 25, 1971. William L. Robinson, New York City, for petitioner. Lawrence G. Wallace, Washington, D.C., the United States, as amicus curiae, by special leave of Court. Donald T. Senterfitt, Orlando, Fla., respondent. PER CURIAM. 1 Petitioner Mrs. Phillips commenced an action in States District Court Middle Florida under Title VII Civil Rights Act 1964* alleging that she had been denied employment because her sex. The granted summary judgment Martin Marietta Corp. (Martin) on basis following showing: (1) 1966 informed it was not accepting job applications from women with pre-school-age children; (2) time motion judgment, employed men (3) at applied, 70—75% applicants position sought were women; 75—80% those hired position, assembly trainee, women, hence no question bias against such presented. 2 Appeals Fifth Circuit affirmed, 411 F.2d 1, and a rehearing en banc, 416 1257 (1969). We certiorari. 397 960, 90 994, 25 252 (1970). 3 Section 703(a) 1964 requires persons like qualifications be given opportunities irrespective their therefore erred reading this section permitting one hiring policy another men—each having children. existence conflicting family obligations, if demonstrably more relevant to performance woman than man, could arguably distinction § 703(e) Act. But is matter evidence tending show condition 'is bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary normal operation particular business or enterprise.' record before us, however, adequate resolution these important issues. See Kennedy v. Silas Mason Co., 334 249, 256—257, 68 1031, 1034, 92 L.Ed. 1347 (1948). Summary improper we remand fuller development further consideration. 4 Vacated remanded. 5 Mr. Justice MARSHALL, concurring. 6 While I agree case must remanded full facts, cannot Court's indication 'bona of' Marietta's established showing some even vast majority, children have responsibilities interfere do usually responsibilities. Certainly, employer can require all his employees, both meet minimum standards, he try insure compliance requiring parents, mothers fathers, provide care so interfered with. 7 suggests would uniform standards. fear case, where issue squarely has fallen into trap assuming permits ancient canards about proper role discrimination. Congress, just opposite result. 8 By adding1 prohibition discrimination based sex Congress intended prevent employers refusing 'to hire individual stereotyped characterizations sexes.' Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Guidelines Discrimination Because Sex, 29 CFR 1604.1(a)(i)(ii). Bowe Colgate-Palmolive 711 (CA7 1969); Weeks Southern Bell Tel. & 408 228 (CA5 1969). Even domestic roles sexes serve predicates restricting opportunity.2 exception qualification' swallow rule. 9 That construed whose regulations are entitled 'great deference,' Udall Tallman, 380 16, 85 792, 801, 13 616 (1965), applicable only situations specific physical characteristics necessarily possessed sex.3 Thus apply 'for purpose authenticity genuineness'4 actors actresses, fashion models, like.5 If limited6 intended, Commission possible construction. 10 When involved, when parental concerned, opportunity may limited criteria neutral applicant. * 703 Act, 78 Stat. 255, 42 U.S.C. 2000e—2, provides follows: '(a) It shall unlawful practice employer— '(1) fail refuse discharge any individual, otherwise discriminate respect compensation, terms, conditions, privileges employment, individual's race, color, religion, sex, national origin *. '(e) Notwithstanding other provision title, employ employees certain instances enterprise, *.' ban added amendment offered during debate House Rep. Smith Virginia. 110 Cong.Rec. 2577. Neal American Airlines, Inc., CCH Practices Guide 6002 (EEOC 1968); Colvin Piedmont Aviation, 6003 2578 (remarks Bass). Commission's provide: 'Sex qualification. believes should interpreted narrowly. Labels—,'men's jobs' 'Women's jobs'—tend deny unnecessarily other. will find warrant application exception: '(i) refusal assumptions comparative general. For example, assumption turnover rate among higher men. '(ii) sexes. Such stereotypes include, less capable assembling intricate equipment; aggressive salesmanship. principle non-discrimination individuals considered capacities generally attributed group. '(iii) preferences co-workers, employer, clients customers except covered specifically subparagraph paragraph. '(iv) fact separate facilities person justify unless expense clearly unreasonable. '(2) Where genuineness, consider qualification, e.g., actor actress. '(b) Many enacted laws promulgated administrative females. Among which prohibit limit females, females occupations, jobs lifting carrying weights exceeding prescribed limits, hours night, specified number per day week. State regulations, although originally protecting ceased our technology expanding female worker economy. found take account capacities, preferences, abilities tend rather protect. Accordingly, concluded conflict defense exception.' 1604.1. 1604.1(a)(2), n. 3, supra. 7217 (memorandum Sens. Clark Case). 7213

Category: 1