> Wojtek wrote:
> >I would add to it the whole issue of 'standards' used to define jobs , job
> >responsibility, and work schedule that 'engender' work by making it more
> >'suitable' for men or women - but without overly sexist overtones. To
> >illustrate, establishing a standard that requires 100lbs lifting
> >autmoatically excludes most women but does not look like overtly sexist,
> >until we realize that the 100lbs standrad is arbitrary.
>
Such a standard can be a basis for a Title VII disparate impact sex discrinmination lawsuit. If the standard is really arbitrary, it will not pass muster. Standards like that have to be job related, or the employer will be liable. Job relatedness requires a showing of more than a mere assertion, although less than a staistically verifiable connection. But the employer's bare recitation that the standard is job related will not rebut a prima facie case of disparate impact discrimination.
--jks