Dothard v. Rawlinson - Dissenting Opinions

Only one full dissent occurred in the case. Justice White argued that Rawlinson had not shown a discriminatory hiring pattern due to the height and weight requirement because she relied on height and weight statistics about the population at large and not the pool of applicants for prison guard positions in Alabama. In his opinion, therefore, Rawlinson did not meet the weight requirement to serve as a prison guard and should have had no grounds to sue on the issue of the "close contact" provision.

Other dissenting opinions came from Justices Marshall and Brennan, who concurred with the Court's position as to the height and weight requirement, but disagreed with the ruling on "close contact." These two justices argued that no evidence existed to show that women prison guards are at any more risk of attack by inmates than male prison guards. They also asserted that violent behavior among the prison population should not be used as an excuse for denying job opportunities to female applicants