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

Question restatement: The zoo has a policy requiring giraffe handlers to be at least 6 feet tall and refuses to hire Penelope, who is 5 feet 2 inches tall. The inquiry is how the zoo has been treated under discrimination law.
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 prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities, but height alone is not recognized as a disability, and being 5'2" does not make Penelope a qualified individual with a disability. The ADA does not reach cases based on non-disabled individuals simply because of shorter stature.
Option 2: 'Not discriminated in violation of Title VII... because being 6 feet tall is job related.' This is flawed reasoning. Even if a height requirement could be argued as job-related, Title VII discrimination analysis requires considering whether a facially neutral policy disproportionately harms a protected class (such as women) and whether there are less discriminatory alternatives or a business necessity. The statement asserts a definitive justification without addressing potential illegality under disparate impact theory or alternative justifications.
Option 3: 'Discriminated in violation of Title VII against Penelope under the disparate impact theory of discrimination.' This option points to Title VII and the disparate impact framework, which applies when a neutral policy disproportionately affects a protected class (here, sex) and lacks a business necessity or equal protection alternatives. Height requirements can have disparate effects on women if a large portion of the protected group would not meet the height threshold, making the policy potentially unlawful under this theory.
Option 4: 'Not discriminated against Penelope, because short people are not a protected class.' This misframes the issue. Even if height itself is not a protected class, Title VII discrimination can occur when a neutral policy disproportionately impacts a protected class (such as women). The absence of height as a protected class does not automatically immunize the employer from liability if the policy adversely affects members of a protected group and there is no justification. The statement oversimplifies the protections afforded by Title VII and ignores disparate impact considerations.
In summary, option 1 misapplies the ADA, option 2 makes an unwarranted claim about job-necessity without engaging discrimination theory, option 3 correctly invokes Title VII and the disparate impact framework as a potential basis for liability, and option 4 incorrectly neutralizes height by omitting the protected-class analysis at play in Title VII cases.

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:单项选择题

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

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:

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

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

智能学习助手

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