Chapter ITraditionally, women are expected to play an inferior role in life, they are expected to become secretaries, but rarely lawyers, doctors or CEOs, teachers, but rarely professors, flight attendants. , but he is rarely expected to become a pilot. The purpose of this research is to not only advocate for gender discrimination in the aviation industry, but also that society needs to change these presented patterns of unequal employment opportunities in aviation. It is generally accepted that there are common practices of discrimination against women in airlines around the world. . These issues range from marriage, weight policy, retirement age, pregnancy, promotion and physical appearance. Specifically, the sex discrimination provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as legislative and judicial exceptions, have been the basis of bitter disputes between airlines and women for decades. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides the following (“Civil Rights”): Unlawful Employment Practices SEC. 2000e-2. [Section 703](a) Employer PracticesIt constitutes an unlawful employment practice for an employer -(1) to fail or refuse to hire or fire a person, or to otherwise discriminate against a person regarding its remuneration, terms and conditions. , or employment privileges, because of that person's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or (2) limit, segregate or classify its employees or applicants for employment in any manner that would deprive or tend to deprive any person of employment opportunities or that would in any way adversely affect his or her status as an employee , because of that person's race, color, religion, sex or national origin. (b) Employment ...... middle of paper ...... switchman on the grounds that the job was reserved for men only. In this case, the courts ruled in favor of the employer for two reasons: first, a state law that limited the weight a woman could lift; and second, the company had described the work as “hard” and had other “unpleasant working conditions.” In another case Phillips v. Martin-Marietta Corporation. The company had a policy of not hiring women with preschool-aged children—a constraint that did not extend to male applicants (Binder 1971). In another case, Neal v. American Airlines, Incorporated, which involved the firing of a flight attendant six months after her marriage, a clause in the stewardess' contract provided that the company "may, at its discretion." preferably, release a married flight attendant from work at any time after the expiration of six months following her pregnancy or marriage. » (Binder 1971).