Talk:Bona fide occupational qualifications

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Law (Rated Stub-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon


This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Race or color?[edit]

In general, race or color cannot be a BFOQ.

I marked this with {{fact}} because it doesn't appear to fit in with the rest of the paragraph, which lists valid BFOQs. Is it the case that race or color can be a BFOQ in a situation such as an actor portraying a character of African descent, as in the case with the clothing manufacturer? Or is it the case that race or color cannot be a BFOQ, possibly on grounds that makeup can make a white man appear black enough for a black role? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 13:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It's obviously much later than this question was asked, but for the curious, blackface it is; per US Code Title 42, Chapter 21, Subchapter VI, § 2000e-2 (e)(1), race may never be a BFOQ. (Disclaimer: I am, however, not a lawyer.) ExOttoyuhr (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

No, not blackface. The First Amendment overrides any act of Congress, and would permit the use of gender, racial or any other form of discrimination when it is integral to the storyline. The common practice of hiring white men for the majority of roles regardless of the story, however, is likely illegal. See this discussion, or the journal article that it summarizes, which I'll add to the article itself. For the sake of clarity, race is not explicitly excluded as a BFOQ: it's just not listed—which is a little different. Gerweck (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

BFOQ or BFOR in Canada?[edit]

If Canada actually uses the term bona fide occupational requirements, why would the Supreme Court use the other term? (see quote "Even then the employer can invoke the BFOQ defence") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.86.240.101 (talk) 06:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Diaz v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc.[edit]

From the article:

Despite intuition, mere customer satisfaction, or lack thereof, is not enough to justify a BFOQ defense; this defense was attempted, and struck down, in the 1970 case of Diaz v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc.

That's not quite how I read that case; perhaps that is a correct reading of some parts of the decision, but the essence of the decision seems to be that sex can be a BFOQ in some cases because of the ways that men and women interact, which seems inextricably tied to customer satisfaction and preference. Note that the essence of the case was that Pan Am refused to hire a man as a flight attendant, and the court upheld that policy, agreeing that it was reasonably related to legitimate business objectives.

From the opinion:

The clear import of this legislative history is that customer preference can provide a basis for an employer's selecting employees on the basis of their sex where the preference is a legitimate one, related to differences in the ways in which the work will be performed by persons of different sexes, and the manner in which such performance will be received by the customer because of such differences.

However, I'm far from an expert on the subject, so I'm reluctant to do any rewriting myself. It would be good if somebody more familiar with the material could expand upon this paragraph.

Jordan Brown (talk) 23:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm in the process of adding more citations and clarifying this issue. Basically, customer preference is not a BFOQ for a job like a flight attendant, but it is a BFOQ when it is really necessary, like a Hooters girl or a Playboy bunny. LegalSkeptic (talk) 15:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)