Bowe v. Colgate-Palmolive - Significance, Protective Legislation, Gender Segregation, The First Round, Appeals Court Overrules, Impact

basis jobs appellants women

Appellants

Thelma Bowe et al.

Appellees

Colgate-Palmolive Company and International Chemical Workers Union, Local #15

Appellants' Claim

That companies do not have the right to segregate jobs on the basis of gender by limiting women to less strenuous jobs.

Chief Lawyer for Appellants

Marion W. Garnett

Chief Lawyer for Appellees

Herbert L. Segal

Judges

Walter J. Cummings, Otto Kerner, Henry S. Wise

Place

Chicago, Illinois

Date of Decision

26 September 1969

Decision

Companies may not use job classification systems that discriminate on the basis of gender. If a weight-lifting limit is used as a general guideline, it must apply to both men and women--providing employees the opportunity to demonstrate their suitability for physically demanding jobs on an individual basis.

Related Cases

Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (1923).

Sources

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, Vol. 2. St. Paul, MN: West Group, 1998.

Additional Topics

Bowe v. Colgate-Palmolive - Significance

Many jobs that had been for men only were made available for women--so long as they could meet the physical requirements. The bona fide occupational qualification exception to Title VII--permitting discrimination where it is reasonably necessary to the job--therefore would no longer be used to exclude women from most job opportunities. The passage of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act raised t…

Bowe v. Colgate-Palmolive - Protective Legislation

Colgate, like many companies, had placed a weight limit on items female employees might be required to lift. Such restrictions on women could also include maximum hours rules and prohibitions on nighttime work. These regulations were mostly products of the Progressive Era, which lasted from 1900 to World War I. The women's groups and unions who had promoted these laws had benevolent motives. Unfor…

Bowe v. Colgate-Palmolive - The First Round

The district court refused to equate racial and sex-based discrimination, and endorsed the idea that the bona fide occupational qualification exception does not have to be based on what is absolutely necessary, but rather what is "reasonably necessary." By emphasizing the word "reasonably" and choosing to interpret it to mean that some options are left open for employers, the court found in favor …

Bowe v. Colgate-Palmolive - Appeals Court Overrules

Two years later, the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, heard the case in Chicago. On 26 September 1969, the judges reversed most of the lower court's decision. It found that, although a defendant would have to defend himself or herself twice, it was necessary to allow plaintiffs to pursue remedies through both the courts and through arbitration, because each channel might off…

Citing this material

Please include a link to this page if you have found this material useful for research or writing a related article. Content on this website is from high-quality, licensed material originally published in print form. You can always be sure you're reading unbiased, factual, and accurate information.

Highlight the text below, right-click, and select “copy”. Paste the link into your website, email, or any other HTML document.