29 C.F.R. § 1604.7
Pre-employment inquiries as to sex
A pre-employment inquiry may ask “Male........., Female.........”; or “Mr. Mrs. Miss,” provided that the inquiry is made in good faith for a nondiscriminatory purpose. Any pre-employment inquiry in connection with prospective employment which expresses directly or indirectly any limitation, specification, or discrimination as to sex shall be unlawful unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 1976–1990 · leading case: Cnty. of Washington v. Gunther, 452 U.S. 161 (1981).
Cnty. of Washington v. Gunther, 452 U.S. 161 (1981). “" 29 CFR § 1604.7 (a) (1966). In 1972, the EEOC deleted this portion of the Guideline, see 37 Fed.”
State Ex Rel. McClure v. Sports & Health Club, Inc., 370 N.W.2d 844 (Minn. 1985). “29 C.F.R. § 1604.7 , 1605.3, 1606.6 (1984).”
Rabidue v. Osceola Refining Co., 584 F. Supp. 419 (E.D. Mich. 1984). “The Court remembers a movement in the Congress that enacted Title VII directed toward conferring cease and desist remedial power on the EEOC.”
Ernestine KING, Appellant, v. TRANS WORLD AIRLINES, INC., Appellee, 738 F.2d 255 (8th Cir. 1984). “The EEOC Sex Discrimination Guidelines, 29 C.F.R. § 1604.7 (1983), prohibit this type of questioning: "Any pre-employment inquiry in connection with prospective employment which expresses directly or indirectly any limitation, specification or discrimination as to sex shall be…”
Gunther v. Cnty. of Washington, 602 F.2d 882 (9th Cir. 1979). “This guideline, formerly codified at 29 C.F.R. § 1604.7 (1966) stated that: (a) Title VII requires that its provisions be harmonized with the Equal Pay Act (section 6(d) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.”
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Colby Coll., 439 F. Supp. 631 (D. Me. 1977). “29 C.F.R. § 1604.7 (a), (b), (c) (1965). 6 .”
Gunther v. Cnty. of Washington, 623 F.2d 1303 (9th Cir. 1979). “This guideline, formerly codified at 29 C.F.R. § 1604.7 (1966) stated that: (a) Title VII requires that its provisions be harmonized with the Equal Pay Act (section 6(d) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.”
Gerlach v. Michigan Bell Tel. Co., 501 F. Supp. 1300 (E.D. Mich. 1980). “The full text of the guideline codified at 29 C.F.R. 1604.7 stated: (a) Title VII requires that its provisions be harmonized with the Equal Pay Act (section 6(d) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 29 U.”
Barbano v. Madison Cnty., 922 F.2d 139 (2d Cir. 1990). “Moreover, the import of Greene's discriminatory questions was substantial, since apart from one question about her qualifications, none of the interviewers asked Barbano about other areas that allegedly formed the basis for selecting a candidate.”
Manhart v. City of Los Angeles, 553 F.2d 581 (9th Cir. 1976). “29 CFR § 1604.7 (b) provided: “Accordingly, the Commission will make applicable to equal pay complaints filed under Title VII the relevant interpretations of the Administrator, Wage and Hour Division, Department of Labor.”
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.