question archive BUS 670 Employment Law This document of BUS 670 Employment Law comprises: Respond to chapter 51, Problem 3 on Title VII:Dianne Rawlinson, a female applicant who was rejected for employment as a prison guard in the Alabama prison system, challenged certain state rules restricting her employment prospects under Title VII
BUS 670 Employment Law This document of BUS 670 Employment Law comprises: Respond to chapter 51, Problem 3 on Title VII:Dianne Rawlinson, a female applicant who was rejected for employment as a prison guard in the Alabama prison system, challenged certain state rules restricting her employment prospects under Title VII
Subject:BusinessPrice: Bought3
BUS 670 Employment Law
This document of BUS 670 Employment Law comprises:
Respond to chapter 51, Problem 3 on Title VII:Dianne Rawlinson, a female applicant who was rejected for employment as a prison guard in the Alabama prison system, challenged certain state rules restricting her employment prospects under Title VII. They were (1) requirements that all prison employees be at least 5 feet 2 inches tall and weigh at least 120 pounds, and (2) a rule expressly prohibiting women from assuming close-contact prison guard positions in maximum-security prisons (most of which were all male). What method of proving a Title VII case should Rawlinson use in attacking the height and weight requirements? Does she need to use one of these methods to attack the second rule? What argument should the state use if Rawlinson establishes that the height and weight requirements have an adverse impact? What Title VII defense might the state have for the second rule? With regard to the second rule, assume that at this time Alabama
