29 C.F.R. § 1604.4
Discrimination against married women
(a) The Commission has determined that an employer's rule which forbids or restricts the employment of married women and which is not applicable to married men is a discrimination based on sex prohibited by title VII of the Civil Rights Act. It does not seem to us relevant that the rule is not directed against all females, but only against married females, for so long as sex is a factor in the application of the rule, such application involves a discrimination based on sex.
(b) It may be that under certain circumstances, such a rule could be justified within the meaning of section 703(e)(1) of title VII. We express no opinion on this question at this time except to point out that sex as a bona fide occupational qualification must be justified in terms of the peculiar requirements of the particular job and not on the basis of a general principle such as the desirability of spreading work.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1968–2024 · leading case: Holien v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 689 P.2d 1292 (Or. 1984).
Holien v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 689 P.2d 1292 (Or. 1984). “2d 613 (1971); 29 C.F.R. § 1604.4 (a) (1979)); Tomkins v.”
Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm'n on Human Relations, 413 U.S. 376 (1973). “See 29 CFR § 1604.4 . [8] See also Jones v. Opelika, 319 U.”
Barbara J. HENSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF DUNDEE, Defendant-Appellee, 682 F.2d 897 (11th Cir. 1982). “2d 613 (1971); 29 C.F.R. § 1604.4 (a) (1979)); Tomkins v.”
AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen, 556 U.S. 701 (2009). “4 : “The Commission has determined that an employer’s rule which forbids or restricts the employment of married women and which is not appli cable to married men is a discrimination based on sex prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.”
Sandra G. Bundy v. Delbert Jackson, Dir., D.C. Dep't of Corr., 641 F.2d 934 (D.C. Cir. 1981). “2d 613 (1971); see 29 C.F.R. § 1604.4 (a) (1979) (“so long as sex is a factor in the application of [an employer’s decision], such application involves a discrimination based on sex”).”
Paulette L. Barnes v. Douglas M. Costle, Adm'r of the Env't Prot. Agency, 561 F.2d 983 (D.C. Cir. 1977). “1975), where four black women were discharged as a result of their refusal to perform heavy cleaning, assertedly not part of their duties and required of them simply because of their race.”
Cynthia J. Fisher, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Vassar Coll., Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, 70 F.3d 1420 (2d Cir. 1995). “However, we note that marital status is not necessarily a bipolar distinction between people who are married and people who are not.”
Munford v. James T. Barnes & Co., 441 F. Supp. 459 (E.D. Mich. 1977). “This Court therefore rejects the defendants’ contention that sexual stereotyping is the sine qua non of sex discrimination under Title VII and holds that an employee whose complaint alleges that she was discharged for refusing the sexual advances of her supervisor has stated a…”
Thomson v. Sanborn's Motor Express, Inc., 382 A.2d 53 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1977). “2d 543 (1971); 29 C.F.R. § 1604.4 (1974). Plaintiff attempts to classify defendant's practice as a form of covert discrimination which arises when a "facially neutral" employment practice is shown, in its application, to have an adverse effect upon a class protected by Title VII.”
Donna Harper v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 525 F.2d 409 (8th Cir. 1975). “2d 543 (1971); 29 C.F.R. § 1604.4 (1974). Plaintiff attempts to classify defendant’s practice as a form of covert discrimination which arises when a “facially neutral” employment practice is shown, in its application, to have an adverse effect upon a class protected by Title VII.”
Chicago Fire Fighters Union Local No. 2 v. Washington, 736 F. Supp. 923 (N.D. Ill. 1990). “A plaintiff seeking to make out a prima facie case typically applies to test results the “four-fifths” rule of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Uniform Guidelines on Employment Selection, 29 C.F.R. § 1604.4 (D). 5 Id. at 225-26 .”
Gerstle v. Cont'l Airlines, Inc., 358 F. Supp. 545 (D. Colo. 1973). “§ 2000e-2(a)(1), see EEOC Guidelines on Discrimination Because of Sex, 29 C.F.R. § 1604.4 and cases cited infra, this element alone is not sufficient to justify an immediate finding for the allegedly aggrieved plaintiffs.”
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.