Dissent Dothard
Ashley
Race, Gender, & Law
Paper #1 – Dissent on Dothard v. Rawlinson
September 29, 2014
Appellee Dianne Rawlinson applied for a position as a prison guard with the Alabama Board of Corrections, where her application was subsequently rejected. According to Alabama statue she did not meet the minimum 120-pounds weight requirement. She filed a complaint to the District Court challenging the height and weight minima as a violation of Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. She later amended her complaint to include a challenge to Regulation 204, adopted by the Alabama Board of Corrections, which establishes gender criteria when assigning prison guards to “contact positions.”i The majority opinion of the Supreme Court decided, “Title VII…prohibits application of the statutory height and weight requirements to Rawlinson and the class she represents.”ii However, the majority opinion decided “Regulation 204 falls within the ambit of the [bona-fide-occupational-qualification] bfoq exception.”iii I agree with Parts I and II of the Court’s opinion however, I disagree with the Court’s opinion made in Part III because of the Court’s application of the bfoq exception in this case.
It is clear to the Court that Regulation 204 “explicitly discriminates against women”iv based on their sex. The appellant’s affirmative defense of bfoq relies on the understanding that Regulation 204 falls within the “narrowest of exceptions to the general rule requiring equality of employment opportunities.”v In this case the District Court is corrected in that “Regulation 204 is based on… stereotypical assumptions.”vi In spite of this, the Court translates stereotypes into a safety concern in order to justify the discrimination. The Court states that there is a “real risk that other inmates [aside from sex offenders]… would assault women guards because they were women.”vii In Part II of the majority opinion the purpose of adopting a test for applicants that
Race, Gender, & Law
Paper #1 – Dissent on Dothard v. Rawlinson
September 29, 2014
Appellee Dianne Rawlinson applied for a position as a prison guard with the Alabama Board of Corrections, where her application was subsequently rejected. According to Alabama statue she did not meet the minimum 120-pounds weight requirement. She filed a complaint to the District Court challenging the height and weight minima as a violation of Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. She later amended her complaint to include a challenge to Regulation 204, adopted by the Alabama Board of Corrections, which establishes gender criteria when assigning prison guards to “contact positions.”i The majority opinion of the Supreme Court decided, “Title VII…prohibits application of the statutory height and weight requirements to Rawlinson and the class she represents.”ii However, the majority opinion decided “Regulation 204 falls within the ambit of the [bona-fide-occupational-qualification] bfoq exception.”iii I agree with Parts I and II of the Court’s opinion however, I disagree with the Court’s opinion made in Part III because of the Court’s application of the bfoq exception in this case.
It is clear to the Court that Regulation 204 “explicitly discriminates against women”iv based on their sex. The appellant’s affirmative defense of bfoq relies on the understanding that Regulation 204 falls within the “narrowest of exceptions to the general rule requiring equality of employment opportunities.”v In this case the District Court is corrected in that “Regulation 204 is based on… stereotypical assumptions.”vi In spite of this, the Court translates stereotypes into a safety concern in order to justify the discrimination. The Court states that there is a “real risk that other inmates [aside from sex offenders]… would assault women guards because they were women.”vii In Part II of the majority opinion the purpose of adopting a test for applicants that