Reference no: EM131451269

Question: Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp. 400 U.S. 542 (1971)

A female applicant was denied employment because of the employer's policy against hiring women with preschool-age children. There was no policy against hiring men with such children. The Supreme Court held the employer's policy violated Title VII.

Per Curiam

Martin Marietta informed Ida Phillips that it was not accepting job applications from women with pre-schoolage children. As of the time of this action, Martin Marietta employed men with pre-school-age children. At the time Phillips applied, 70-75% of the applicants for the position she sought were women; 75-80% of those hired for the position, assembly trainee, were women, hence no question of bias against women as such was presented. Section 703(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires that persons of like qualifications be given employment opportunities irrespective of their gender. The Court of Appeals therefore erred in reading this section as permitting one hiring policy for women and another for men-each having pre-school-age children.

The existence of such conflicting family obligations, if demonstrably more relevant to job performance for a woman than a man, could arguably be a basis for distinction under 703(3) [BFOQ] of the Act. But that is a matter of evidence tending to show that the condition in question is a BFOQ reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise. The record before us, however, is not adequate for resolution of these important issues. VACATED and REMANDED. Marshall, J., concurring. While I agree that this case must be remanded for a full development of the facts, I cannot agree with the Court's indication that a BFOQ reasonably necessary to the normal operation of Martin Marietta's business could be established by a showing that some women, even the vast majority, with pre-school-age children have family responsibilities that interfere with job performance and that men do not usually have such responsibilities.

Certainly, an employer can require that all of his employees, both men and women, meet minimum performance standards, and he can try to insure compliance by requiring parents, both mothers and fathers, to provide for the care of their children so that job performance is not interfered with. The Court has fallen into the trap of assuming that the Act permits ancient canards about the proper role of women to be the basis for discrimination. Congress, however, sought just the opposite result. Even characterizations of the proper domestic roles of the genders were not to serve as predicates for restricting employment opportunity. The exception for a BFOQ was not intended to swallow that rule

1. Why do you think the employer instituted the rule discussed here? Does it actually address the employer's concern?

2. Can you think of a better way for management to handle its concerns about preschool parents?

3. Does Justice Marshall's position make sense to you? Why or why not?