Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 US 321 (1977)

Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 US 321 (1977)

Brief descriptions of the basic facts that are related to this case begin with a 22-year-old female, Dianne Kimberly Rawlinson (Dorthard V. Rawlinson, 433 U. S. 321, 1977). She attempts to gain employment with the Alabama prison system (Dorthard V. Rawlinson, 433 U. S. 321, 1977). She weighs 110 pounds and does not qualify for employment as a guard due to the minimum weight requirement of 120 pounds (Landmark Civil Rights Cases Opened Door for SPLC Official's Law Enforcement Career, 2011). She was denied employment due to the height and weight requirements for the job of correctional counselor trainee (Dorthard V. Rawlinson, 433 U. S. 321, 1977). Rawlinson filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleging sex discrimination. A civil suit was filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center and created the district case that became the Supreme Court Case: Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 US 321 (1977). The two parties are the Alabama corrections officials and Dianne Kimberly Rawlinson (Dorthard V. Rawlinson, 433 U. S. 321, 1977). The District Court must decide if the standard requirement for employment violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.The Supreme Court must decide if the District Court ruled in error when it decided that it was a discriminatory practice and did violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The Supreme Court takes issue with the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 with the question; do employment requirements that remove 41% of women (national level) (Dorthard V. Rawlinson, 433 U. S. 321, 1977) as acceptable candidates for the job create a discriminatory practice? Is a woman’s choice to work in a “dangerous field” superseded by the need to protect her from harm (Cushman, 2001)? These two questions become the main Constitutional questions.
The Supreme Court decision upheld the lower court’s ruling that is was a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Court voted 8 to 1 that the requirements were a violation of Title VII. The Court did find that bona fide occupational qualifications could permit the hiring of one gender. In this case it was reasoned that women working in an all-male prison environment were subject to the unique harm of rape. This part of the filing was remanded and sent to the lower court for revision (Dorthard V. Rawlinson, 433 U. S. 321, 1977).
. Title VII violations primarily revolved around racial bias during the 1970’s. The Rawlinson case was one of the few cases of the time period that involved sexual discrimination in hiring practices. The Court felt that this was unlawful sexual discrimination. The Civil Rights Act was a new precedence in law standards and was used to correct many disparities in the United States. The Court felt that the choice of a woman to work in a field superseded the paternalistic view that she may not be able to protect herself and must be discriminated against for her safety. The Court further identifies that there is a danger working in prisons no matter the gender of the employee. The opinion of the court noted that the close contact of females to inmates created a bona fide occupational qualifications situation where women guards were at more risk than male guards (Dorthard V. Rawlinson, 433 U. S. 321, 1977).
One full opinion of dissent was given for the case by Justice White. Justices Marshall and Brennan provided a partial dissent concerning the latter issue of close contact ruling (Dorthard V. Rawlinson, 433 U. S. 321, 1977). Justice White stated that Rawlinson failed to prove up her case by using statics that were not specific to the subject. In this failure, Rawlinson had no right to sue. In the opinion of Justices Marshall and Brennan, they both concur with the ruling on the height and weight requirement and dissent from the ruling on close contact. The opinion asserted that undesirable behavior among the prison population as an excuse for denying job opportunities to female applicants is unacceptable.
The ruling on this case restricted the discrimination of women by removing unlawful job requirements. Hiring requirements can no longer be based on factors or requirements that remove women as acceptable candidates for the job (Cushman, 2001). The affects are far reaching to women in Criminal Justice. Criminal Justice is currently a field that is composed of a primarily male workforce. This ruling has provided access to many jobs for female employees. This ruling establishes that women can do the job as well as a man. The ruling has affected women’s ability to gain employment in fields including Law Enforcement and Corrections. A positive example of this case ruling is noted by a Southern Poverty Law Center Article in 2011: “Glenda Deese was working at the Dallas County Courthouse in Alabama when she asked a state trooper how she could join the force. “He politely told me I shouldn't worry about it because I couldn't become a trooper anyway," she recalls” (Landmark Civil Rights Cases Opened Door for SPLC Official's Law Enforcement Career, 2011). This court ruling provided her with an open door and she became “the second-highest ranking official in the Alabama Department of Public Safety” (Landmark Civil Rights Cases Opened Door for SPLC Official's Law Enforcement Career, 2011). There is no differential reason that a woman cannot do the same job as a man. The job can be done by a human no matter the gender. The paternalistic attitude of society politely harms women and keeps them in poverty with dead end jobs. Rulings such as this provide a way to correct this dehumanizing practice. This ruling is slowly changing social values by correct education on the accepted fiction that women are weak. If women are weak it is because society told them to be weak. . Dana Cowan concurs with the partial dissent opinion provided by Justices Marshall and Brennan. The ruling on the height and weight requirement is sound; the ruling on bona fide occupational qualifications violates Title VII. In no way should a woman be prevented from gaining employment due to the possibility of unruly, dangerous inmates. The fact of danger is understood and accepted and should be a woman’s choice. Ruling on preconceived notions based what may happen to the woman is paternalistic, bias and legal fiction. Barring a woman from employment on these grounds is asinine. Alabama was purposely discriminating against women due to one main fact: if the height and weight requirements were not enforced with discriminatory intent, the women would have been given the waiver provision. Rawlinson and Mieth (Dorthard V. Rawlinson, 433 U. S. 321, 1977) were not given the waiver option making this employment denial an absolute discrimination with intent (Bartlett, 2002). Pam Horowitz, the former SPLC attorney who worked on Dothard v. Rawlinson (Landmark Civil Rights Cases Opened Door for SPLC Official's Law Enforcement Career, 2011) is a trailblazer and should be considered a hero for many women working in Criminal Justice.

Bibliography
Dorthard V. Rawlinson, 433 U. S. 321. (1977, June 27). Retrieved 10 01, 2011, from US Supreme Court Cases & Opinions: http://supreme.justia.com/us/433/321/case.html#328

Landmark Civil Rights Cases Opened Door for SPLC Official's Law Enforcement Career. (2011, July 11). Southern Poverty Law Center, 1.

Bartlett, K. (2002). Gender and Law. New York, New York: Aspen Publishers , Inc.

Cushman, C. (2001). Supreme Court Decisions and Women's Rights. Washington , Washington D.C, U.S.A.: CQ Press.