HR Management & Compliance

Appearance Policies: Physical Restrictions And Appearance Rules May Prompt Bias Suits; Guidelines On What You Can Require

You can impose height or weight restrictions for certain jobs as long as they’re necessary to the normal operation of your business and don’t burden one sex more heavily than the other. And it’s OK to set standards governing appearance and dress if they’re applied fairly to both men and women.

But problems in these areas recently came to light when a group of female flight attendants sued United Airlines. We’ll examine what happened in this case and point out some guidelines on setting height, weight and appearance requirements for employees.

Women Had To Be Thinner Than Men

For 14 years, United imposed weight limits on its male and female flight attendants. Women had to weigh between 14 and 25 pounds less than men of the same height and age. United based its requirements on standard weight charts from an insurance company and another airline.

The problem with United’s policy was that it required women to meet a different, more burdensome set of standards. A man’s weight could fall within the category on the charts for “large-framed” men. But women couldn’t exceed the maximum weight for “medium-framed” women. In other words, women not only had to weigh less than men—they also had to appear thinner.


Join us this fall in San Francisco for the California Employment Law Update conference, a 3-day event that will teach you everything you need to know about new laws and regulations, and your compliance obligations, for the year ahead—it’s one-stop shopping at its best.


Sex And Age Bias Claimed

A group of female flight attendants sued the airline, arguing the policy discriminated against women. They also claimed age discrimination because, they said, the requirements were harder for older flight attendants to meet. United subsequently dropped its weight rules, but the lawsuit continued.

Now, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal has said the women conclusively proved their sex discrimination claim. Unless United successfully appeals this ruling, the case will return to the trial court to determine damages, which could amount to millions of dollars.

Thinness Not Reasonably Necessary

The appeals court said policies that treat men and women differently are generally illegal—unless the difference is reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the business.

Nothing about being a flight attendant reasonably requires females to be disproportionately thinner than males, the court said. Women don’t need to be slimmer than men to perform their duties such as greeting passengers, moving carts or assisting in emergencies.

Impact May Hit Older Workers Harder

United’s weight policy also raised potential age discrimination problems. The court said it could be illegal if, in practice, its effect on older flight attendants were more severe than on younger ones. Whether this was the case will be decided in an upcoming trial.

Guidelines On Physical Characteristics And Appearance

The following are some general rules on when you can—and can’t—establish job requirements based on height, weight, dress or appearance:

  1. Don’t impose unequal burdens. Height and weight restrictions on one sex but not the other are usually illegal. So are requirements that are more strict for one gender, like the United policy that required women, but not men, to fall into the “medium-frame” category.

     

  2. Be sure physical requirements satisfy a legitimate business need. Even if your restrictions appear to be identical for men and women, they are illegal unless you can show each is reasonably necessary for the worker to perform the job. For example, because a 5’9″ height requirement will exclude more women than men, it can’t be justified on the ground that someone this tall is more likely to have the strength the job requires. If strength is the required qualification, use a strength test, not a height restriction.

     

  3. Analyze reasons for different dress or appearance codes. In contrast to physical requirements, the law allows for greater differences in criteria for dress and appearance. For example, you obviously can impose different hair-length restrictions on men than on women. You also can make men wear neckties even though women don’t have to. And if you require uniforms, they can be tailored differently by gender.

However, if your dress and appearance policies have a significant impact on one sex and not the other, the discrimination laws come into play. For example, you cannot insist on uniforms for men only. Plus, you may not require skirts or dresses for women—except, for example, when all employees have to wear uniforms and the skirt or dress is part of the women’s outfit (see CEA October 1994). The overall rule is that if the requirement for one sex is substantially different, it must be justified by a legitimate business reason.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *