anyone, male or female, on how to carry cases of liquor or how to unload a truck (Tr. p. 292). There was no training course for anyone, male or female, on how to increase an employee's strength or ability to lift heavy weights.
22. Plaintiff was not terminated because of her sex, but because of her inability to perform all of the physical work expected of all clerks. No training existed which could improve her ability to physically execute her duties of lifting, carrying and stacking cartons of liquor. Some of the heavier cartons each weighed 42 pounds.
23. After the defendant heard that plaintiff was going to file a charge with the Human Relations Commission and the EEOC, plaintiff's co-workers were requested by James E. Hanawalt, the defendant's personnel analyst, to put their complaints about plaintiff to management in writing.
24. Plaintiff's co-workers, namely Marie Widmer, a female clerk, Blair Schumaker, the manager, Anthony Farrell, the assistant manager and William R. Scheibe, a male clerk, put their complaints in writing. These written evaluations were made available to the EEOC and the Human Relations Commission. At the trial the foregoing co-workers testified that the plaintiff was incapable physically of doing the heavy work required of a liquor store clerk (See finding 19).
25. There was no proof that any male employees who were unable physically to perform physical labor were maintained in their employment.
26. A certain amount of team work was performed among the employees; the employees with seniority sometimes were assigned to work at the counter in preference to newly employed clerks.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Plaintiff is an "employee" within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (Tr. p. 5).
2. Defendant is an "employer" within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (Tr. p. 5).
3. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in employment based on sex (Tr. p. 5).
4. Jobs which involve heavy labor or significant physical strength must be made available to all. Weeks v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 408 F.2d 228 (5th Cir. 1969) (Tr. p. 5).
5. Even when standards of physical strength are applied uniformly, they must be shown to be reasonably necessary to job performance. Smith v. Troyan, 520 F.2d 492, 10 E.P.D. P 10,263 (6th Cir. 1975) (Tr. p. 5).
6. Where standards of physical strength are not applied uniformly to men and women, an employer may be guilty of discrimination on the basis of sex. Bowe v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 416 F.2d 711 (7th Cir. 1969) (Tr. p. 5).
7. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act expressly prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in the administration of training programs. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(d). Newman v. Avco Corp., 491 F. Supp. 89, 7 E.P.D. P 9117 (M.D. Tenn. 1973) (Tr. p. 5).
8. In Westmoreland County, the defendant provided no training for males which was not provided for females. Training of all new employees was on-the-job training. The only formal training provided to other employees by Mr. Herlman which was not provided to the plaintiff was training in sales counter procedure which plaintiff already was performing adequately at the time Mr. Herlman visited the store.
9. No training existed which enabled an employee to lift, carry and stack heavy cartons beyond his or her physical strength.
10. Standards of physical strength were applied uniformly to men and women hired as liquor store clerks.
11. The plaintiff was not terminated from her employment because of lack of training in the functions of a liquor store clerk.
12. The plaintiff was not terminated from her employment because of discrimination on the basis of sex.
13. The defendant demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that plaintiff was discharged for a legitimate non-discriminatory reason. The plaintiff was terminated from her employment because she as an individual was incapable physically of adequately performing the physical labor required of a liquor store clerk, and because some of her physical work had to be performed by other clerks in the store in addition to their own work.
An appropriate order will be entered in favor of the defendant.