## Facts

- Celio Diaz, Jr. applied in 1967 to Pan American World Airways, Inc. for a flight cabin attendant position.
- Pan Am rejected Diaz solely because it maintained a policy of hiring only women as cabin attendants.
- Diaz filed a charge with the EEOC alleging sex discrimination; the EEOC found probable cause but conciliation failed.
- Diaz filed a Title VII class action in federal district court on behalf of himself and similarly situated male applicants, seeking injunctive relief and damages.
- Pan Am admitted its sex-restrictive hiring policy; the parties treated the central dispute as whether being female was a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) for the job.
- The district court upheld the policy, finding female sex a BFOQ based largely on passenger preference and perceived superior ability of women to reassure passengers.

## Issues

1. Whether Pan Am’s refusal to hire men as flight cabin attendants violated Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination in hiring.
2. Whether being female was a BFOQ reasonably necessary to the normal operation of Pan Am’s business for the cabin attendant position.

## Decision

- The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court and remanded.
- The court held that being female was not a BFOQ for the position of flight cabin attendant.
- Pan Am’s policy of refusing to hire men for the job solely because of sex violated Title VII.

## Legal Principles

- Title VII’s BFOQ exception for sex discrimination is an extremely narrow exception to the general ban on sex-based employment decisions.
- The BFOQ inquiry focuses on whether excluding one sex is reasonably necessary to the “essence” of the employer’s business operation; incidental functions and brand image do not control.
- Customer preference cannot justify sex-based exclusion; allowing preferences to drive hiring would defeat Title VII’s anti-discrimination command.
- An employer must show that the excluded sex, as a class, cannot perform the job’s primary duties safely and efficiently; absent such proof, categorical exclusion is unlawful.
- Profit, marketing, or public-relations advantages from sex stereotyping do not satisfy the statutory “reasonable necessity” required for a BFOQ.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit held Pan Am’s female-only flight attendant hiring policy unlawful under Title VII because sex was not reasonably necessary to performing the job’s core safety and service functions, and customer preference and commercial image could not establish a BFOQ.


Diaz v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 442 F.2d 385 (5th Cir. 1971)