Wilson v Southwest Airlines Co

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 192.152.243.164 (talk) at 18:44, 13 September 2018 (I am a Quinniiac University student studying this case and don't believe the classification of this case was clear enough for someone like myself who was looking it up.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Wilson v Southwest Airlines
CourtUS Supreme Court
Citation(s)517 FSupp 292 (ND Tex 1981)
Keywords
Discrimination

Wilson v Southwest Airlines, 517 FSupp 292 (ND Tex 1981) is a US labor law case, concerning discrimination.

Facts

Southwest Airlines hired females only to cabin attendant positions and required they wear hot pants in response to the mostly male passengers. Male applicants claimed this was unlawful sex discrimination. The company argued it was needed to protect the business’ image, which had recently included an advertising campaign promising 'love in the sky'. This was argued as a Bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) by Southwest.

Judgment

The Texas Court held the men won because the business’ essence was transporting passengers and the ‘love in the sky’ ads were not central enough and did not meet primary function of the business.

Significance

The case triggered a series of other complaints. A Hooters class action case was settled without resolution of the law.

See also

Notes

References

External links