Summary

Patrick Higginbotham Wilson v. Southwest Airlines Co…

There is no competent proof that Southwest's popularity derives directly from its females-only policy to the exclusion of other factors like dissatisfaction with rival airlines and Southwest's use of convenient Love and Hobby Fields. Nor is there competent proof that the customer preference for females is so strong that Defendant's male passengers would cease doing business with Southwest as was the case in Fernandez. In short, Southwest has failed in its proof to satisfy Diaz's business necessity requirement, without which customer preference may not give rise to a BFOQ for sex.
Source: Wikisource

Patrick Higginbotham Wilson v. Southwest Airlines Co…

Customer preferences should not be bootstrapped to the level of business necessity. The only occasion where customer preference will rise to the dignity of a bona fide occupational qualification is where no customer will do business with a member of one sex either because it would destroy the essence of the business or would create serious safety and efficiency problems. Id. at 1165.↑ Southwest's argument that its primary function is "to make a profit," not to transport passengers, must be rejected. Without doubt the goal of every business is to make a profit.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature