PHR practice question 14 of 25

Kelly's organization has posted a new job opening for their organization. This job opening is for a woman to be the restroom attended, for all…

Kelly's organization has posted a new job opening for their organization. This job opening is for a woman to be the restroom attended, for all women's restrooms and locker rooms, in their organization. Kelly believes, however, that the requirement for the applicant to be a female is a violation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Which one of the following is the best answer for this scenario?

Answer options

A: This is an example of an exception by bona fide occupational qualification to the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Correct answer

B: This is an example of a violation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

C: The sex of applicants is excluded from the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

D: This is not a violation of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because there is an equal paying and titled job for the men's restroom and locker rooms in the company

Correct Answer:

A. This is an example of an exception by bona fide occupational qualification to the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Explanation

This scenario is a classic example of a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ), which is a legally permissible exception to Title VII's general prohibition against discrimination based on sex, religion, or national origin. For a BFOQ to be valid, the employer must demonstrate that the specific characteristic is "reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business." In the case of a restroom or locker room attendant, gender is considered essential to the job to protect the privacy interests of patrons, a core aspect of the service being provided.

Why Incorrect

B. This is not a violation because the BFOQ exception for privacy is well-established and applies directly to this type of role.
C. Sex is a protected class under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; it is not excluded from the act.
D. The existence of a similar job for the opposite gender is irrelevant to whether a specific job requirement constitutes a BFOQ.

References

1. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (The official text of the law includes the BFOQ exception in Section 703(e), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(e)).

2. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. EEOC Compliance Manual, Section 625: BFOQ. (This guidance provides examples, stating that a BFOQ may be justified for positions like "a locker room attendant... where the job requires the employee to observe people in a state of undress and the work would be performed by an employee of the opposite sex," § 625.4(b)(1)).

3. Oppenheimer, D. B., & Weber, M. C. (2018). Comparative Perspectives on the Fundamentals of Disability Rights. In The Global Impact of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190492354.001.0001. (Academic legal texts on employment law consistently cite restroom attendants as a primary example of a legitimate BFOQ based on sex due to privacy concerns).

Keep practicing

Take the free PHR practice test

Ten exam-style questions with answers and explanations, plus the exam facts and study guides.

Start the free practice test