Case Scenario: DIAZ V. PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS 442 F.2d 385 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1971)

Facts: Diaz, a male, applied for a job as flight cabin attendant with Pan American Airlines [Pan Am] but was rejected because Pan Am had a policy of only hiring females for that position. He then filed charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging that Pan Am had unlawfully discriminated against him on the grounds of sex. EEOC efforts to resolve the complaint were unsuccessful, and Diaz then filed a class action suit on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, alleging that Pan Am had violated Section 703 of Title VII. The trial court also found that Pan Am's passengers overwhelmingly preferred to be served by female flight attendants, and that given the unique environment of an aircraft cabin, female flight attendants were better able to attend to the special psychological needs of the passengers. Pan Am did not claim that there were no males with the necessary qualities to perform these functions, but the trial court found that the actualities of the hiring process would make it more difficult to find these few males. The trial court held that hiring females only was the best method for screening out applicants likely to be unsatisfactory, and to require Pan Am to hire male flight attendants would likely reduce the average level of flight attendant performance. The trial court held that hiring only female flight attendants was a "bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) reasonably necessary to the normal operation" of Pan Am's business. The trial court ruled in favor of Pan Am, and Diaz appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Issue: Did Pan Am demonstrate that being female is a bona fide occupational qualification for the job of flight cabin attendant?

Decision: The court of appeals held that the BFOQ provision, Section 703(e), should be read narrowly; the test for a BFOQ is business necessity, not business convenience. Discrimination based on sex under a BFOQ is valid only when the essence of the business operation would be undermined by not hiring members of one sex exclusively. The primary function of an airline is to transport passengers safely from one point to another. While a pleasant environment- enhanced by the obvious cosmetic effect that female flight attendants provide as well as their apparent ability to perform the nonmechanical functions of the job in a more effective manner than most men-may be important, it is tangential to the essence of the business involved. Pan Am did not show that having male flight attendants so seriously affected the operation of an airline as to jeopardize or even minimize its ability to provide safe transportation from one place to another. Indeed, the evidence disclosed that many airlines, including Pan Am, had hired both men and women flight attendants in the past, and Pan Am did use male flight attendants on some of its foreign flights. When hiring, Pan Am could consider the ability of individuals to perform the nonmechanical functions of the job. However, because the nonmechanical aspects of the job of flight cabin attendant were not "reasonably necessary to the normal operation" of Pan Am's business, Pan Am could not exclude all males from the job simply because most males may not have performed as adequately as most females. Pan Am had not shown that "all or substantially all men" were unable to perform the requirements of the job properly. Pan Am claimed that the customers preferred female flight attendants because they could better perform the nonmechanical aspects of the job, but those aspects were tangential to the business, and customer preference cannot justify a BFOQ. The court of appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court, and held that Pan Am had not established that hiring only females as flight attendants was a BFOQ.