Bowe v. Colgate-Palmolive
Significance, Protective Legislation, Gender Segregation, The First Round, Appeals Court Overrules, Impact
Thelma Bowe et al.
Colgate-Palmolive Company and International Chemical Workers Union, Local #15
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
Walter J. Cummings, Otto Kerner, Henry S. Wise
Date of Decision
26 September 1969
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.
- Adkins v. Children's Hospital, 261 U.S. 525 (1923).
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, Vol. 2. St. Paul, MN: West Group, 1998.
- Brandenburg v. Ohio - Significance, The Ohio Criminal Syndicalism Law, Whitney Reversed, Impact
- Bond v. Floyd - Significance, Can States Require That Legislators Meet Ethical Standards?, Maximum Freedom To Say Anything, Anywhere, At Any Time
- Bowe v. Colgate-Palmolive - Further Readings
- Bowe v. Colgate-Palmolive - Significance
- Bowe v. Colgate-Palmolive - Protective Legislation
- Bowe v. Colgate-Palmolive - Gender Segregation
- Bowe v. Colgate-Palmolive - The First Round
- Bowe v. Colgate-Palmolive - Appeals Court Overrules
- Bowe v. Colgate-Palmolive - Impact
- Bowe v. Colgate-Palmolive - Bona Fide Occupational Qualification
- Other Free Encyclopedias