Bona fide occupational

qualification
OUR LAWS respect and recognize the right of management
in exercising its prerogative. Generally, the employer
is free to regulate all facets of its business operation
including every aspects relating to employment such
as hiring, formulating work processes and
regulations, laying-off, discipline and dismissal of
workers. However, this does not mean that
management prerogative is absolute; it is still
subject to the limitations imposed by law or by
collective bargaining agreements (CBA), employment
contract, company policy or practice, and general
principles of fair play and justice.

That being said, one of the more contentious issues in the area of
hiring and retention of employment is whether the employer can
impose job qualifications based on physical appearance or civil/marital
status of a person. At first glance, the answer seems to be in the
negative. However, the Supreme Court, in some cases and under
certain circumstances, upheld the right of management to impose such
qualifications.

In Armando Yrasuegi v. Philippine Airlines, Inc. (G.R. No. 168081, Oct.

17, 2008), Yrasuegi, a former international flight steward of Philippine
Airlines, Inc. (PAL), was at least 40 pounds over his ideal weight. PAL
requires certain weight standards for its cabin crew or flight
attendants, hence, Yrasuegi was advised several times to trim down
his weight. After continuously failing to comply with the weight
requirement for several years, Yrasuegi was dismissed from
employment. The Supreme Court in upholding his dismissal ruled that
the weight standard of PAL is a bona fide occupational qualification
(BFOQ), which is defined as the employment qualifications imposed by
an employer such as sex, religion, or national origin as a limiting factor
in performing a certain job. In the instant case, PAL is a common
carrier and from the nature of its business and for reasons of public
policy, it is bound to observe extraordinary diligence for the safety of
the passengers it transports. It is bound to carry its passengers safely
as far as human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost
diligence of very cautious persons, with due regard for all the
circumstances. Hence, the primary objective of PAL in the imposition
of the weight standards for cabin crew is flight safety -- as body
weight and size of a cabin attendant are important factors to consider
especially during emergency situations considering that aircraft space
is very limited. A BFOQ on weight standards in this case was deemed
to be necessary and justified given the normal operations of PAL.

The BFOQ was likewise applied in the case of Star Paper Corp. v.
Rolando D. Simbol, et. al. (G.R. No. 164774, April 12 , 2006), wherein
the Supreme Court ruled against Star Paper for prohibiting an
employee to marry his/her co-employee and also for forcing either one
of them to resign from their post in case the couple violates the policy.
The court stated that in order to justify a BFOQ, the employer must
prove two factors: (1) that the employment qualification is reasonably
related to the essential operation of the job involved; and, (2) that
there is a factual basis for believing that all or substantially all persons
meeting the qualification would be unable to properly perform the
duties of the job. Star Paper in this case failed to show how the
marriage between its employees could be detrimental to its business
operations aside from its bare allegations that the policy is premised
on the mere fear that employees married to each other will be less
efficient. The court stated that it cannot uphold the questioned rule
without valid justification; otherwise, the company can create policies
based on an unproven presumption of a perceived danger at the
expense of an employee’s right to security of tenure. Thus, a
requirement for a man or woman employee to remain unmarried can
only be considered as a BFOQ, if the requirements of the job would
justify it, but not on the ground of a general principle, such as the
desirability of spreading work in the workplace. A requirement of that
nature would be valid provided it reflects an inherent quality
reasonably necessary for satisfactory job performance (PT&T v. NLRC,
G.R. No. 118978, May 23 , 1997).

In the same context, in line with BFOQ, the standard of

reasonableness of a company policy was also applied in the case of
Duncan Association of Detailman-PTGWO v. Glaxo Wellcome
Philippines, Inc. (G.R. No. 162994, Sept. 17, 2004) where the validity
of the pharmaceutical company’s rule of prohibiting its employees from
marrying employees of any competitor company was upheld. In this
case, the Supreme Court ruled that Glaxo has a right to guard its trade
secrets, manufacturing formulas, marketing strategies and other
confidential programs and information from competitors. The court
considered the prohibition against personal or marital relationships
with employees of competitor companies upon Glaxo’s employees
reasonable under the circumstances because relationships of that
nature might compromise the interests of Glaxo. In laying down the
assailed company policy, the Court recognized that Glaxo only aims to
protect its interests against the possibility of a competitor gaining
access to its secrets and procedures.

Ultimately, a company must strike a careful balance between

exercising its management prerogative while ensuring that the rights
of employees are not neglected. Employment in particular jobs may
not be limited to persons of a particular sex, religion, national origin,
status or even physical appearance unless the employer can show that
such are necessary qualifications for performing the job. In the event
that companies deem it is necessary to impose hiring restrictions, the
above-mentioned cases can be used as points of reference in
determining whether or not the imposition of a particular occupational
qualification is valid.
It must be noted that the imposition of a bona fide occupational
qualification is an exception rather than the rule and, therefore, it is
interpreted strictly and narrowly by our courts. The rule is that, unless
the employer can prove that the reasonable demands of the business
require a distinction based on marital status or physical appearance
and there is no better available or acceptable policy which would
better accomplish the business purpose, an employer may not
discriminate against an employee based on the identity of the
employee’s spouse or his/her appearance. As held in the Star Paper
case, there must be a compelling business necessity for which no
alternative exists other than the discriminatory practice.