The zoo requires that the giraffe handlers be at least 6 feet tall, due to the animal’s long necks. Relying on its policy, the zoo refuses to hire Penelope, who is 5 feet 2 inches in height, for the position of giraffe handler. Under these circumstances, the zoo has:

Question

The zoo requires that the giraffe handlers be at least 6 feet tall, due to the animal’s long necks.  Relying on its policy, the zoo refuses to hire Penelope, who is 5 feet 2 inches in height, for the position of giraffe handler.   Under these circumstances, the zoo has:

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

The question describes a hiring policy that requires a minimum height of 6 feet for giraffe handlers, and Penelope is 5 feet 2 inches tall. The task is to evaluate which statement about this scenario is true.

Option 1: "Discriminated illegally against Penelope in violation of the Americans With Disability Act (ADA), because by being 5 feet 2 inches in height, Penelope is a qualified individual with a disability." This is incorrect. The ADA protects individuals with disabilities; height alone is not a disability, and there is no basis to claim Penelope has a disability merely because she is shorter. A height-based policy would not arise under the ADA unless it related to a recognized disability, which is not the case here.

Option 2: "Not discriminated in violation of Title VII against Penelope in violation of Title VII, because being 6 feet tall is job related." This is incorrect. Title VII prohibits discrimination on protected characteristics, and height is not itself a protected characteristic. Even if a policy seems related to job performance, courts look for a substantial relationship to the job and evidence of unlawful discrimination, not a blanket assertion that height is job-related without justification.

Option 3: "Discriminated in violation of Title VII against Penelope under the disparate impact theory of discrimination." This is correct as a matter of typical bar-exam reasoning. A facially neutral height requirement can have a disproportionate impact on a protected class (for example, women, who on average may be shorter than men). If the policy is not a business necessity and excludes a protected group at a rate higher than their availability in the job pool, it can fail under Title VII’s disparate impact theory.

Option 4: "Not discriminated against Penelope, because short people are not a protected class." This is incorrect. Disparate impact does not require the policy to target a protected class to be unlawful; the protected-class focus arises in analyzing the extent of disparate impact on protected groups. Also, even if some individuals outside protected classes are affected, the presence of a disproportionate impact on protected groups can render the policy unlawful.

In summary, the policy’s neutral height requirement can produce a disparate impact against a protected class, triggering potential Title VII liability, whereas the other options misapply disability protections, the nature of protected classes, or the job-relatedness justification.

BUSFIN 3500 AU2025 (2111) Chapter 8 Quiz

The zoo requires that the giraffe handlers be at least 6 feet tall, due to the animal’s long necks. Relying on its policy, the zoo refuses to hire Penelope, who is 5 feet 2 inches in height, for the position of giraffe handler. Under these circumstances, the zoo has:

查看解析

登录即可查看完整答案

类似问题

Question at position 21 Griggs v. Duke Power identified and defined disparate impact when a protected class of employees challenged the company’s selection requirements for hire or transfer.FalseTrue

To violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act under the concept of disparate impact, an employer must have acted with discriminatory intent.

The zoo requires that the giraffe handlers be at least 6 feet tall, due to the animal’s long necks. Relying on its policy, the zoo refuses to hire Penelope, who is 5 feet 2 inches in height, for the position of giraffe handler. Under these circumstances, the zoo has:

Disparate-impact discrimination occurs when an employer intentionally discriminates against an employee who is a member of a protected class.

To which one of the following cases would the concept of disparate impact potentially apply?

Under _________, intent is irrelevant.

更多留学生实用工具

考试浏览器助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单