1. What purpose did the height and weight requirement serve? Do you think it was made to intentionally discriminate against women? According to the argument presented by the Alabama Board of Corrections, the height and weight requirements were correlated to strength. By working in a maximum security facility where the inmates could become violent and threaten a guard in close contact, the physical strength is necessary to counter those likely threats.
Alabama’s height and weight requirement could have been grounded on the assumption that short or skinny prison guards or workers may not be able to command respect from the inmates because of their size. It’s a flawed reasoning but reflects societal influences. Bigger people are more likely to make others behave properly, like the bouncers in night clubs. The prison administration would want the institutions to be as orderly as possible and to avoid putting any guard in a dangerous situation.
A guard of diminutive height and size could be easily overpowered by a strong inmate and the Alabama board, in an anticipatory move, does not want a situation like this to occur. While it is not true that women are physically weaker than men, it has always been generally accepted that the women are the weaker sex, letting men do most of the manual and heavy work at home. Looking at it from this perspective, the Alabama Board of Corrections was just taking this machismo approach in delegating women to prison jobs that the board thinks is less dangerous than the contact jobs.
For Alabama to have set the height and weight at that particular level could only be seen as a move to exclude women since they are generally shorter and less heavier than men. In a way, the Alabama Board is protecting women from likely threats coming from the inmates. Since it is illegal to outrightly say that only male applicants are accepted, the Board has to find a less obvious way of excluding perceived weak females from the contact positions. 2. How could management have avoided this outcome?
Since the Alabama Board’s argument was based on the correlation between strength and the height and weight requirements, it could have put in place a means for testing strength, as suggested by the Supreme Court. The Board could have also considered and studied how other prison facilities staffing are being conducted in order to avoid being sued for gender discrimination. Before it implemented the height and weight requirements, Alabama should have kept an open mind concerning the impact of this on the female population.
It should have treated the workforce in an equal manner, giving every qualified person a chance at becoming a prison worker. Moreover, Alabama should revise its hiring process to include mental skills, particularly for people who wants to be counselors In Rawlinson’s case, she has a degree in correctional psychology, which could be very useful for the post in which she was applying for. The Board should have considered her professional qualifications instead of her weight. . In your view, should womens access to male prisoners be limited as described here? Why or why not? In my opinion, women’s access to male prisoners would depend on the situation and how dangerous a prisoner is. In cases where the offenders have not committed major offenses like murder or rape, a woman counselor or guard should be allowed to work among these people. So long as there are security measures in place and proper training, the female guards would be safe enough.
But for dangerous prisoners and facilities housing characters of undetermined psychological tendencies, a female guard may not be particularly safe dealing with them. A male prisoner with a deranged mind can easily overpower a female guard who’s not physically big and strong. Part II A workplace is a place where male and female employees should work free from any form of behavior or practice that would make them feel uncomfortable.
If the workplace has nude pictures and the supervisor does not do something about it, then, he is definitely doing sexual harassment. The female employee has already voiced her concern but the supervisor has rejected it. It therefore follows that the supervisor is unconcerned or deliberately making female employees feel uncomfortable to perhaps drive them away from the workplace.