The court decided that Southwest did not sufficiently establish that its policy of hiring only females in flight attendant and ticket clerk positions is a bona fide occupational qualification. They failed to prove that their profits would directly decrease if they were to hire males.
The book states that a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification “…allows an employer to hire a specific gender…when business necessity requires it. (Cihon, 147)” A BFOQ for sex must be denied where sex is merely useful for attracting customers of the opposite sex, but where hiring both sexes will not alter or undermine the essential function of the employer's business. Because of the lack of supporting evidence and inability to provide a convincing business necessity Southwest Airlines was not successful in claiming a BFOQ.
Group Decision:
Our group agrees with the court’s decision. We believe that it was not Congress’ intent to grant a BFOQ for sex appeal. The lack of evident that Southwest was able to provide the courts with, gives our group more of a convicting vote in favor of Wilson. We understand that Southwest was using the “Love Airline” image to have an advantage over their competition, but research showed that “courteous and attentive hostesses” was ranked fifth in importance when their customers completed surveys. Just as the court’s ruling depicted, lower fares and on-time departures are a more dominate reason for picking an airline.
I agree with both the court and groups decision here. Southwest failed to provide a legitimate BFOQ for hiring only females as flight attendants and ticket clerks. The facts show that gender of the people working in these positions does not have a strong effect on reason for choosing an airline. Therefore, Southwest should not win the case.
ReplyDelete