Landmark Case 13.4 Diaz Vs Pan Am Summary

In the Landmark Case 13.4 Diaz v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., a man with the last name Diaz is turned away from a job as a flight attendant with Pam American Airlines because the airline had a strict policy that only women can be employed as fight attendants. Diaz filed a complaint with the EEOC, claiming that Pan Am’s employment policy was in violation of Title VII because he was discriminated against based on his sex. Pan Am argued that gender was a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) for flight attendant positions because expert studied had concluded that women were better in nontechnical aspects of the job, such as reassuring anxious passengers (Melvin & Katz, 2015, p. 386). Thus, Pan Am proposed a nondiscriminatory motive for the action in question while asserting a legally recognizable defense. Pan Am defended their position and employment policy on the basis of Business Necessity. “ A business necessity defense is defined as a defense used to rebut disparate impact claims when a business can prove …show more content…
Pan Am is an excellent case that arises various questions pertaining to legal, social, business, ethical, and biblical aspects of life. For starters, “Under the Title VII, employers may not discriminate against employees or job applicants because of sex. Although little legislative history illuminates the meaning of sex the Supreme Court equates it with gender .The “because of sex” provisions protects individuals of both genders (Bornstein, 2009).” Due to the fact that Diaz v. Pan Am was a legal conflict that specifically addressed equal employment opportunity, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had a direct effect on the ruling made by the Fifth Circuit Court. These rulings aided in the way similar cases were viewed. Diaz v Pan Am allowed for a better understanding of a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ).” As well as, it aided it eliminating any legal basis for regarding the validity of a Bona fide occupational