Employment Discrimination (Title VII)
400 U.S. 542 (U.S. 1971) (per curiam)
Study notes for Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp.: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.
An employer cannot engage in different hiring practices for men and women with preschool-age children unless sex is a proven BFOQ for the position.
Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp. is a significant case in the realm of employment discrimination law under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Supreme Court ruled that an employer's policy of refusing job applications from women with pre-school-age children—while accepting those from men in similar circumstances—constitutes sex discrimination. This ruling underscores the principle that discriminatory hiring practices cannot be justified based on assumptions about women's roles as caregivers. Additionally, the Court emphasized that if an employer wishes to establish that a particular sex is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ), they must substantiate this claim, which reinforces the burden of proof on the employer in discrimination cases. Importantly, the lack of findings related to BFOQ in this case led to the reversal of the lower court's summary judgment for the employer.
Women & preschool = equal chance; men & preschool = equal chance.
| Case | Distinction |
|---|---|
| Dothard v. Rawlinson | In Dothard, the court allowed a BFOQ defense for a gender-based hiring policy, contrasting with Phillips, which did not find sufficient evidence of a BFOQ. |
| Griggs v. Duke Power Co. | Griggs focused on neutral policies that disproportionately affected a protected class without justification, while Phillips addressed overt discrimination against women. |
| McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green | McDonnell Douglas established a framework for proving discrimination, whereas Phillips clarified the standard for BFOQ evidence and its burdens. |
This rule prevents systemic discrimination in hiring practices, promoting equal opportunity and combatting stereotypes about women's roles.
Some argue that allowing certain distinctions based on parental status might be necessary for specific job functions, potentially complicating hiring decisions.
This case often appears on exams as a canonical example of sex discrimination under Title VII, illustrating the Court's stance against discriminatory hiring practices based on gender and parental status.