## Facts

- Leah Rosenfeld, a Southern Pacific employee, sought assignment to an agent-telegrapher position at Thermal, California.
- Southern Pacific assigned the position to a male employee with less seniority, pursuant to a general policy excluding women from agent-telegrapher jobs.
- The agent-telegrapher work was described as physically demanding and could involve long hours and lifting heavy objects.
- Rosenfeld sued under Title VII, seeking injunctive relief and monetary compensation for the alleged sex-based denial of the assignment.
- Southern Pacific defended by citing California labor laws limiting women’s working hours and lifting, arguing these constraints supported excluding women from the position and supported a BFOQ defense.
- California intervened to defend the validity and applicability of its protective labor statutes.
- While the case was pending, Southern Pacific closed the Thermal agency; the case proceeded because the litigation addressed broader company policy and the interaction between state and federal law.

## Issues

1. Whether Southern Pacific’s categorical exclusion of women from agent-telegrapher positions and denial of the Thermal assignment constituted discrimination “because of sex” under Title VII.
2. Whether Southern Pacific established a bona fide occupational qualification defense based on job demands and/or asserted compliance with California protective labor statutes.
3. Whether California protective labor statutes could lawfully be applied to justify practices that would otherwise violate Title VII, or whether Title VII displaced conflicting state law.
4. Whether closure of the Thermal agency mooted the action.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed judgment for Rosenfeld on liability and declaratory/injunctive issues.
- The court held Southern Pacific’s policy and practice of excluding women from agent-telegrapher positions violated Title VII.
- The court rejected the asserted BFOQ justification based on generalized assumptions about women’s physical capacities and reliance on sex-specific state restrictions.
- The court held that, to the extent California protective labor statutes conflicted with Title VII’s ban on sex discrimination, they were superseded by federal law and could not justify the employer’s practices.
- The court agreed the case was not moot despite closure of the Thermal agency because the dispute concerned company-wide policy and ongoing legal consequences of the declaratory determinations.
- No damages were awarded; the appellate disposition focused on the legality of employment practices and the state-law conflict.

## Legal Principles

- A categorical bar against employing women in a job classification constitutes sex discrimination under Title VII when it rests on sex-based classification rather than individual assessment.
- Title VII’s BFOQ exception is narrowly construed; an employer must show sex is reasonably necessary to the job’s essence, not merely convenient or supported by generalizations.
- Sex-based stereotypes about physical ability do not establish a BFOQ; employers must evaluate individual capability rather than exclude an entire sex.
- State laws that impose sex-specific employment restrictions cannot be used to justify employment practices that violate Title VII; federal law controls to the extent of conflict.
- A case is not moot where the challenged policy and the resulting declaratory/injunctive determinations have continuing effect beyond a single job assignment.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that Southern Pacific’s blanket exclusion of women from agent-telegrapher positions violated Title VII, that neither job-demand generalizations nor California’s sex-specific protective labor laws supplied a valid defense, and that the controversy remained live despite closure of the Thermal agency because the judgment addressed broader employment policies and conflicting legal obligations.


Rosenfeld v. S. Pac. Co., 444 F.2d 1219 (9th Cir. 1971)