One does not trump the other. But if it is against federal law, it doesn’t become legal because a state permits it. Without getting into a huge discussion of federal preemption (which would neccesitate a VERY lengthy post to adequately address), it is possible in this case that the activity is against one, the other, or both laws.
You will note that there is a size limit on applicability of federal law, but none on California employers. So, a restaurant with 10 employees would not be affected by the federal law, but would still run afoul of the state law.
As for the “bona fide occupational qualification” clause in the FEHA, if I recall correctly, that is interpreted to be essentially the same exception as exists in the federal law, namely a limited exception not applicable in cases of racial discrimination (sex and religious discrimination only in the federal situation IIRC), and only applicable if no less restrictive means of accomplishing the employer’s purpose is available.
DSYoung, it’s late (so legal research is not going to happen), and this aspect of employment law is not my strength, but I don’t think there’s a blanket prohibition on race-based hiring in ALL cases.
If Paramount pictures is casting its new Viking movie, I don"t think Denzel Washington has a case if he isn"t hired.
We weren’t discussing Title VII, we were discussing California’s FEHA. The fact that the federal law doesn’t allow racial discrimination on the basis of BFOQ was already established.
I’ll poke around and see if I can’t find a citation for the FEHA issue. It’s Saturday, and I do have some other things to do.