Author Question: Was JCI's policy within the so-called safety exception to the ... (Read 52 times)

olgavictoria · **on:** Jun 24, 2018

Was JCI's policy within the so-called safety exception to the BFOQ?

Question 2

Marta places a large, prefabricated plastic greenhouse in her backyard, with the steel frame bolted into concrete that she poured specially for that purpose. She attaches gas heating ducts and builds a brick walkway around the greenhouse. Now the town wants to raise her real property taxes, claiming that her property has been improved. Marta argues that the greenhouse is not part of the real property. Is it?
a. The greenhouse is not part of the real property because it was prefabricated.
b. The greenhouse is not part of the real property because it could be removed.
c. The greenhouse cannot be part of the real property if Marta owns a fee simple absolute.
d. The greenhouse is a fixture and is part of the real property
e. The greenhouse is an easement, and is part of the real property.

trampas · **Reply #1 on:** Jun 24, 2018

Answer to Question 1

No. The safety exception is limited to instances in which sex or pregnancy actually interferes with the employee's ability to perform the job. Thus, in Dothard the Court allowed sex discrimination in the hiring of prison guards at an Alabama maximum security male prison because the employment of female guards would create real risks of safety to others. It thus found sex to be a BFOQ. No problems existed in JCI with female employees' ability to do their job.

Answer to Question 2

.D