Introduction
Bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) can be described as a quality in employment law that employers are permitted to take into account when making the decision to hire or retain employees (Rhodes, 2002). Such qualities are often considered to be discriminatory when applied in other contexts.
Gender discrimination is defined as a “prejudice that is based on sex, conditions or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex” (Kail & Cavanaugh, 2010, p. 35).
This paper seeks to analyze a case study in which the Milwaukee County Juvenile Detention Center adopted a new policy that that required at least one officer of the same gender as the detainees to be present in every unit at all times. The policy was supposed to reduce the likelihood of sexual abuse, but also resulted into the reduction in the number of shifts for female officers while increasing the same male officers (Rhodes, 2002). Two female officers subsequently sued for illegal gender discrimination. The court held for the county citing BFOQ for which the officers appealed. This paper will specifically establish the evidence that the county had a valid BFOQ.
Analysis
Occupational gender discrimination can be described as statements, practices and actions that are directed to an individual or a group of people at their place of employment due to sex (Kail & Cavanaugh, 2010). Gender discrimination at place of work is unlawful and may come in different forms such as wage disparities and gender stereotypes. However, gender discrimination at place of work may be considered to be lawful if it meets the requirements of BFOQ. As described in the introductory part, a bona fide qualification is considered to be a qualification that is necessary for the normal operations of a given business. BFOQ only applies in instances where a compelling reason has been established (Rhodes, 2002). The mere preference by customers is usually not considered to be a BFOQ. However, a customer preference can only be taken into account in situations where a company is unable to perform its primary function, and whereby a discriminatory quality such as sex appeal is itself the dominant service provided (Bobbit-Zeher, 2011). Furthermore, for any discrimination to qualify as a BFOQ it must directly relate to the essence of the business (Rhodes, 2002). In the current case, the reduction of incidences of sexual abuse was cited as the reason why the county adopted a policy requiring at least one officer of the same gender as the detainees to be present at all times in every unit. The detention center had more male units compared to female ones, and therefore the policy inevitably led to the reduction of shifts for female officers. An evaluation of the impact of that policy is important in establishing whether the county had a valid BFOQ.
Conclusion
There is no reasonable evidence that the presence of at least one officer of the same gender as the detainees at each unit was going to protect the juveniles from sexual abuse. This is due to the fact that sexual abuse can take place between individuals of the same gender. Additionally, there is no evidence that the presence of an officer of the same sex as the detainees can deter sexual abuse (Bobbit-Zeher, 2011). The failure to establish a reasonable ground for the BFOQ therefore implies that the policy was discriminatory against female officers.
References
Bobbit-Zeher, D. (2011). Gender Discrimination at Work: Connecting Gender Stereotypes, Institutional Policies, and Gender Composition of Workplace. Ohio: Ohio State University.
Kail, R., & Cavanaugh, J. (2010). Human Growth and Development. Belmont: Wadworth Learning.
Rhodes, R. (2002). Legal discrimination in four letters: BFOQ. Web.