29 C.F.R. § 1604.1
General principles
(a) References to “employer” or “employers” in this part 1604 state principles that are applicable not only to employers but also to labor organizations and to employment agencies insofar as their action or inaction may adversely affect employment opportunities.
(b) To the extent that the views expressed in prior Commission pronouncements are inconsistent with the views expressed herein, such prior views are hereby overruled.
(c) The Commission will continue to consider particular problems relating to sex discrimination on a case-by-case basis.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 41
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1968–2024 · leading case: Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp., 400 U.S. 542 (1971).
Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp., 400 U.S. 542 (1971). “By adding [1] the prohibition against job discrimination based on sex to the 1964 Civil Rights Act Congress intended to prevent employers from refusing "to hire an individual based on stereotyped characterizations of the sexes.”
Sail'er Inn, Inc. v. Kirby, 485 P.2d 529 (Cal. 1971). “” 10 In determining whether prohibiting women from tending bar falls within the bona fide occupational qualification exception to the federal statute, we are necessarily influenced by the guidelines promulgated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.”
Turner v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 876 P.2d 1022 (Cal. 1994). “How is employer responsibility established under title VII? To implement title VII, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has issued a variety of regulations, including guidelines on discrimination because of sex ( 29 C.F.R. § 1604.1 et seq. (1993)) and…”
Leah Rosenfeld v. S. Pac. Co., a Delaware Corp., Leah Rosenfeld v. S. Pac. Co., a Delaware Corp., 444 F.2d 1219 (9th Cir. 1971). “” 29 C.F.R. § 1604.1 . In the case before us, there is no contention that the sexual characteristics of the employee are crucial to the successful performance of the job, as they would be for the position of a wet-nurse, nor is there a need for authenticity or genuineness, as in…”
Celio DIAZ, Jr. v. PAN Am. WORLD AIRWAYS, INC., 442 F.2d 385 (5th Cir. 1971). “Similarly, we do not feel that the fact that Pan Am’s passengers prefer female stewardesses should alter our judgment.”
Rush Pettway v. Am. Cast Iron Pipe Co., 494 F.2d 211 (5th Cir. 1974). “29 C.F.R. §§ 1604.1 (b), 1604.2(b). See Schaeffer v.”
Mary Burke Sprogis v. United Air Lines, Inc., 444 F.2d 1194 (7th Cir. 1971). “See 29 CFR § 1604.1 (a) (iii); 6 Diaz v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.”
Richards v. Griffith Rubber Mills, 300 F. Supp. 338 (D. Or. 1969). “29 C.F.R. § 1604.1 (a). Individuals must be judged as individuals and not on the basis of characteristics generally attributed to racial, religious, or sexual groups.”
Catherine KOBER v. WESTINGHOUSE Elec. Corp., 480 F.2d 240 (3d Cir. 1973). “29 C.F.R. § 1604.1 (c)(1966). The following statement of the EEOC of February 23, 1968 appropriately de *244 scribes the subsequent course of EEOC policy: [O]n August 19, 1966, the Commission adopted a policy with respect to the processing of cases involving State protective…”
Kober v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 325 F. Supp. 467 (W.D. Pa. 1971). “[ 29 C.F.R. § 1604.1 (b)]. Thereafter, back in Pennsylvania, the state’s Attorney General pondered the problem of the statutory regulation of the working hours of female employees and concluded that it had been repealed by implication, by the adoption of the Amendment to the…”
Ridinger v. Gen. Motors Corp., 325 F. Supp. 1089 (S.D. Ohio 1971). “Equal Employment Opportunity “Guidelines on Discrimination Because of Sex,” 29 C.F.R. § 1604.1 (a) (ii). The “bona fide occupational qualification” exception has been given a limited construction by the Courts to prevent the exception from emasculating the general rule…”
Winifred S. Nance v. Union Carbide Corp., 540 F.2d 718 (4th Cir. 1976). “These rules so adopted were thought to comply with the formal guidelines or regulations issued in 1965 by the EEOC itself, which specifically provided that “restrictions on lifting weights will not be deemed in conflict with Title VII except where the limit is set at an…”
29 C.F.R. § 1604.1(a): 5 cases
Celio DIAZ, Jr. v. PAN Am. WORLD AIRWAYS, INC., 442 F.2d 385 (5th Cir. 1971). “Similarly, we do not feel that the fact that Pan Am’s passengers prefer female stewardesses should alter our judgment.”
Kober v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 325 F. Supp. 467 (W.D. Pa. 1971). “[ 29 C.F.R. § 1604.1 (b)]. Thereafter, back in Pennsylvania, the state’s Attorney General pondered the problem of the statutory regulation of the working hours of female employees and concluded that it had been repealed by implication, by the adoption of the Amendment to the…”
Schattman v. Texas Emp. Comm'n, 330 F. Supp. 328 (W.D. Tex. 1971).
Doe v. Osteopathic Hosp. of Wichita, Inc., 333 F. Supp. 1357 (D. Kan. 1971).
8 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1079 v. c.b.sapp, Jr., 502 F.2d 34 (5th Cir. 1974).
29 C.F.R. § 1604.1(a)(1)(ii): 1 case
2 Fair empl.prac.cas. 121, 2 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 10,090 Thelma Bowe v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., Thelma Bowe v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., Thelma Bowe v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., & Int'l Chem. Workers Union, Local No. 15, Georgianna Sellers v. Colgate Palmolive Co., 416 F.2d 711 (7th Cir. 1969).
29 C.F.R. § 1604.1(b): 2 cases
Rush Pettway v. Am. Cast Iron Pipe Co., 494 F.2d 211 (5th Cir. 1974). “29 C.F.R. §§ 1604.1 (b), 1604.2(b). See Schaeffer v.”
Kober v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 325 F. Supp. 467 (W.D. Pa. 1971). “[ 29 C.F.R. § 1604.1 (b)]. Thereafter, back in Pennsylvania, the state’s Attorney General pondered the problem of the statutory regulation of the working hours of female employees and concluded that it had been repealed by implication, by the adoption of the Amendment to the…”
29 C.F.R. § 1604.1(b)(1970): 1 case
Catherine KOBER v. WESTINGHOUSE Elec. Corp., 480 F.2d 240 (3d Cir. 1973). “29 C.F.R. § 1604.1 (c)(1966). The following statement of the EEOC of February 23, 1968 appropriately de *244 scribes the subsequent course of EEOC policy: [O]n August 19, 1966, the Commission adopted a policy with respect to the processing of cases involving State protective…”
29 C.F.R. § 1604.1(iii): 1 case
Celio DIAZ, Jr. v. PAN Am. WORLD AIRWAYS, INC., 442 F.2d 385 (5th Cir. 1971). “Similarly, we do not feel that the fact that Pan Am’s passengers prefer female stewardesses should alter our judgment.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.