*190Justice Blackmun

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this case we are concerned with an employer’s gender-based fetal-protection policy. May an employer exclude a fertile female employee from certain jobs because of its concern for the health of the fetus the woman might conceive?

HH

Respondent Johnson Controls, Inc., manufactures batteries. In the manufacturing process, the element lead is a primary ingredient. Occupational exposure to lead entails health risks, including the risk of harm to any fetus carried by a female employee.

*191Before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 241, became law, Johnson Controls did not employ any woman in a battery-manufacturing job. In June 1977, however, it announced its first official policy concerning its employment of women in lead-exposure work:

“[Protection of the health of the unborn child is the immediate and direct responsibility of the prospective parents. While the medical profession and the company can support them in the exercise of this responsibility, it cannot assume it for them without simultaneously infringing their rights as persons.

“. . . . Since not all women who can become mothers wish to become mothers (or will become mothers), it would appear to be illegal discrimination to treat all who are capable of pregnancy as though they will become pregnant.” App. 140.

Consistent with that view, Johnson Controls “stopped short of excluding women capable of bearing children from lead exposure,” id., at 138, but emphasized that a woman who expected to have a child should not choose a job in which she would have such exposure. The company also required a woman who wished to be considered for employment to sign a statement that she had been advised of the risk of having a child while she was exposed to lead. The statement informed the woman that although there was evidence “that women exposed to lead have a higher rate of abortion,” this evidence was “not as clear ... as the relationship between cigarette smoking and cancer,” but that it was, “medically speaking, just good sense not to run that risk if you want children and do not want to expose the unborn child to risk, however small. . . .” Id., at 142-143.

Five years later, in 1982, Johnson Controls shifted from a policy of warning to a policy of exclusion. Between 1979 and 1983, eight employees became pregnant while maintaining blood lead levels in excess of 30 micrograms per deciliter. Tr. of Oral Arg. 25, 34. This appeared to be the critical level *192noted by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for a worker who was planning to have a family. See 29 CFR § 1910.1025 (1990). The company responded by announcing a broad exclusion of women from jobs that exposed them to lead:

“ [I]t is [Johnson Controls’] policy that women who are pregnant or who are capable of bearing children will not be placed into jobs involving lead exposure or which could expose them to lead through the exercise of job bidding, bumping, transfer or promotion rights.” App. 85-86.

The policy defined “women . . . capable of bearing children” as “[a]ll women except those whose inability to bear children is medically documented.” Id., at 81. It further stated that an unacceptable work station was one where, “over the past year,” an employee had recorded a blood lead level of more than 30 micrograms per deciliter or the work site had yielded an air sample containing a lead level in excess of 30 micrograms per cubic meter. Ibid.

II

In April 1984, petitioners filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin a class action challenging Johnson Controls’ fetal-protection policy as sex discrimination that violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seq. Among the individual plaintiffs were petitioners Mary Craig, who had chosen to be sterilized in order to avoid losing her job, Elsie Nason, a 50-year-old divorcee, who had suffered a loss in compensation when she was transferred out of a job where she was exposed to lead, and Donald Penney, who had been denied a request for a leave of absence for the purpose of lowering his lead level because he intended to become a father. Upon stipulation of the parties, the District Court certified a class consisting of “all past, present and future production and maintenance employees” in United Auto Workers bar*193gaining units at nine of Johnson Controls’ plants “who have been and continue to be affected by [the employer’s] Fetal Protection Policy implemented in 1982.” No. 84-C-0472 (Feb. 25, 1985), pp. 1, 2.

The District Court granted summary judgment for defendant-respondent Johnson Controls. 680 F. Supp. 309 (1988). Applying a three-part business necessity defense derived from fetal-protection cases in the Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Eleventh Circuits, the District Court concluded that while “there is a disagreement among the experts regarding the effect of lead on the fetus,” the hazard to the fetus through exposure to lead was established by “a considerable body of opinion”; that although “[e]xpert opinion has been provided which holds that lead also affects the reproductive abilities of men and women . . . [and] that these effects are as great as the effects of exposure of the fetus . . . a great body of experts are of the opinion that the fetus is more vulnerable to levels of lead that would not affect adults”; and that petitioners had “failed to establish that there is an acceptable alternative policy which would protect the fetus.” Id., at 315-316. The court stated that, in view of this disposition of the business necessity defense, it did not “have to undertake a bona fide occupational qualification’s [sic] (BFOQ) analysis.” Id., at 316, n. 5.

The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed the summary judgment by a 7-to-4 vote. 886 F. 2d 871 (1989). The majority held that the proper standard for evaluating the fetal-protection policy was the defense of business necessity; that Johnson Controls was entitled to summary judgment under that defense; and that even if the proper standard was a BFOQ, Johnson Controls still was entitled to summary judgment.

The Court of Appeals, see id., at 883-885, first reviewed fetal-protection opinions from the Eleventh and Fourth Circuits. See Hayes v. Shelby Memorial Hospital, 726 F. 2d 1543 (CA11 1984), and Wright v. Olin Corp., 697 F. 2d 1172 *194(CA4 1982). Those opinions established the three-step business necessity inquiry: whether there is a substantial health risk to the fetus; whether transmission of the hazard to the fetus occurs only through women; and whether there is a less discriminatory alternative equally capable of preventing the health hazard to the fetus. 886 F. 2d, at 885. The Court of Appeals agreed with the Eleventh and Fourth Circuits that “the components of the business necessity defense the courts of appeals and the EEOC have utilized in fetal protection cases balance the interests of the employer, the employee and the unborn child in a manner consistent with Title VII.” Id., at 886. The court further noted that, under Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U. S. 642 (1989), the burden of persuasion remained on the plaintiff in challenging a business necessity defense, and — unlike the Fourth and Eleventh Circuits — it thus imposed the burden on the plaintiffs for all three steps. 886 F. 2d, at 887-893. Cf. Hayes, 726 F. 2d, at 1549, and Wright, 697 F. 2d, at 1187.

Applying this business necessity defense, the Court of Appeals ruled that Johnson Controls should prevail. Specifically, the court concluded that there was no genuine issue of material fact about the substantial health-risk factor because the parties agreed that there was a substantial risk to a fetus from lead exposure. 886 F. 2d, at 888-889. The Court of Appeals also concluded that, unlike the evidence of risk to the fetus from the mother’s exposure, the evidence of risk from the father’s exposure, which petitioners presented, “is, at best, speculative and unconvincing.” Id., at 889. Finally, the court found that petitioners had waived the issue of less discriminatory alternatives by not adequately presenting it. It said that, in any event, petitioners had not produced evidence of less discriminatory alternatives in the District Court. Id., at 890-893.

Having concluded that the business necessity defense was the appropriate framework and that Johnson Controls satis-*195fled that standard, the court proceeded to discuss the BFOQ defense and concluded that Johnson Controls met that test, too. Id., at 893-894. The en banc majority ruled that industrial safety is part of the essence of respondent’s business, and that the fetal-protection policy is reasonably necessary to further that concern. Quoting Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U. S. 321, 335 (1977), the majority emphasized that, in view of the goal of protecting the unborn, “more is at stake” than simply an individual woman’s decision to weigh and accept the risks of employment. 886 F. 2d, at 898.

Judges Cudahy and Posner dissented and would have reversed the judgment and remanded the case for trial. Judge Cudahy explained: “It may (and should) be difficult to establish a BFOQ here but I would afford the defendant an opportunity to try.” Id., at 901. “[T]he BFOQ defense need not be narrowly limited to matters of worker productivity, product quality and occupational safety.” Id., at 902, n. 1. He concluded that this case’s “painful complexities are manifestly unsuited for summary judgment.” Id., at 902.

Judge Posner stated: “I think it a mistake to suppose that we can decide this case once and for all on so meager a record.” Ibid. He, too, emphasized that, under Title VII, a fetal-protection policy which explicitly applied just to women could be defended only as a BFOQ. He observed that Title VII defines a BFOQ defense as a “‘bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation’ ” of a business, and that “the ‘normal operation’ of a business encompasses ethical, legal, and business concerns about the effects of an employer’s activities on third parties.” Id., at 902 and 904. He emphasized, however, that whether a particular policy is lawful is a question of fact that should ordinarily be resolved at trial. Id., at 906. Like Judge Cudahy, he stressed that “it will be the rare case where the lawfulness of such a policy can be decided on the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.” Ibid.

*196Judge Easterbrook, also in dissent and joined by Judge Flaum, agreed with Judges Cudahy and Posner that the only defense available to Johnson Controls was the BFOQ. He concluded, however, that the BFOQ defense would not prevail because respondent’s stated concern for the health of the unborn was irrelevant to the operation of its business under the BFOQ. He also viewed the employer’s concern as irrelevant to a woman’s ability or inability to work under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act’s amendment to Title VII, 92 Stat. 2076, 42 U. S. C. §2000e(k). Judge Easterbrook also stressed what he considered the excessive breadth of Johnson Controls’ policy. It applied to all women (except those with medical proof of incapacity to bear children) although most women in an industrial labor forcé do not become pregnant, most of those who do become pregnant will have blood lead levels under 30 micrograms per deciliter, and most of those who become pregnant with levels exceeding that figure will bear normal children anyway. 886 F. 2d, at 912-913. “Concerns about a tiny minority of women cannot set the standard by which all are judged.” Id., at 913.

With its ruling, the Seventh Circuit became the first Court of Appeals to hold that a fetal-protection policy directed exclusively at women could qualify as a BFOQ. We granted certiorari, 494 U. S. 1055 (1990), to resolve the obvious conflict between the Fourth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits on this issue, and to address the important and difficult question whether an employer, seeking to protect potential fetuses, may discriminate against women just because of their ability to become pregnant.1

*197HH h-i hH

The bias m Johnson Controls’ policy is obvious. Fertile men, but not fertile women, are given a choice as to whether they wish to risk their reproductive health for a particular job. Section 703(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 255, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §2000e-2(a), prohibits sex-based classifications in terms and conditions of employment, in hiring and discharging decisions, and in other employment decisions that adversely affect an employee’s status.2 Respondent’s fetal-protection policy explicitly discriminates against women on the basis of their sex. The policy excludes women with childbearing capacity from lead-exposed jobs and so creates a facial classification based on gender. Respondent assumes as much in its brief before this Court. Brief for Respondent 17, n. 24.

Nevertheless, the Court of Appeals assumed, as did the two appellate courts that already had confronted the issue, that sex-specific fetal-protection policies do not involve facial discrimination. 886 F. 2d, at 886-887; Hayes, 726 F. 2d, at 1547; Wright, 697 F. 2d, at 1190. These courts analyzed the policies as though they were facially neutral and had only a *198discriminatory effect upon the employment opportunities of women. Consequently, the courts looked to see if each employer in question had established that its policy was justified as a business necessity. The business necessity standard is more lenient for the employer than the statutory BFOQ defense. The Court of Appeals here went one step further and invoked the burden-shifting framework set forth in Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio, 490 U. S. 642 (1989), thus requiring petitioners to bear the burden of persuasion on all questions. 886 F. 2d, at 887-888. The court assumed that because the asserted reason for the sex-based exclusion (protecting women’s unconceived offspring) was ostensibly benign, the policy was not sex-based discrimination. That assumption, however, was incorrect.

First, Johnson Controls’ policy classifies on the basis of gender and childbearing capacity, rather than fertility alone. Respondent does not seek to protect the unconceived children of all its employees. Despite evidence in the record about the debilitating effect of lead exposure on the male reproductive system, Johnson Controls is concerned only with the harms that may befall the unborn offspring of its female employees. Accordingly, it appears that Johnson Controls would have lost in the Eleventh Circuit under Hayes because its policy does not “effectively and equally protec[t] the offspring of all employees.” 726 F. 2d, at 1548. This Court faced a conceptually similar situation in Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp., 400 U. S. 542 (1971), and found sex discrimination because the policy established “one hiring policy for women and another for men — each having pre-school-age children.” Id., at 544. Johnson Controls’ policy is facially discriminatory because it requires only a female employee to produce proof that she is not capable of reproducing.

Our conclusion is bolstered by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), 42 U. S. C. § 2000e(k), in which Congress explicitly provided that, for purposes of Title VII, discrimination “ ‘on the basis of sex’ ” includes discrimination “because *199of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.”3 “The Pregnancy Discrimination Act has now made clear that, for all Title VII purposes, discrimination based on a woman’s pregnancy is, on its face, discrimination because of her sex.” Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. EEOC, 462 U. S. 669, 684 (1983). In its use of the words “capable of bearing children” in the 1982 policy statement as the criterion for exclusion, Johnson Controls explicitly classifies on the basis of potential for pregnancy. Under the PDA, such a classification must be regarded, for Title VII purposes, in the same light as explicit sex discrimination. Respondent has chosen to treat all its female employees as potentially pregnant; that choice evinces discrimination on the basis of sex.

We concluded above that Johnson Controls’ policy is not neutral because it does not apply to the reproductive capacity of the company’s male employees in the same way as it applies to that of the females. Moreover, the absence of a malevolent motive does not convert a facially discriminatory policy into a neutral policy with a discriminatory effect. Whether an employment practice involves disparate treatment through explicit facial discrimination does not depend on why the employer discriminates but rather on the explicit terms of the discrimination. In Martin Marietta, supra, the motives underlying the employers’ express exclusion of women did not alter the intentionally discriminatory character of the policy. Nor did the arguably benign motives lead to consideration of a business necessity defense. The ques*200tion in that case was whether the discrimination in question could be justified under § 703(e) as a BFOQ. The beneficence of an employer’s purpose does not undermine the conclusion that an explicit gender-based policy is sex discrimination under § 703(a) and thus may be defended only as a BFOQ.

The enforcement policy of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission accords with this conclusion. On January 24, 1990, the EEOC issued a Policy Guidance in the light of the Seventh Circuit’s decision in the present case. App. to Pet. for Cert. 127a. The document noted: “For the plaintiff to bear the burden of proof in a case in which there is direct evidence of a facially discriminatory policy is wholly inconsistent with settled Title VII law.” Id., at 133a. The Commission concluded: “[W]e now think BFOQ is the better approach.” Id., at 134a.

In sum, Johnson Controls’ policy “does not pass the simple test of whether the evidence shows ‘treatment of a person in a manner which but for that person’s sex would be different.’” Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power v. Manhart, 435 U. S. 702, 711 (1978), quoting Developments in the Law, Employment Discrimination and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 84 Harv. L. Rev. 1109, 1170 (1971). We hold that Johnson Controls’ fetal-protection policy is sex discrimination forbidden under Title VII unless respondent can establish that sex is a “bona fide occupational qualification.”

rH <1

Under § 703(e)(1) of Title VII, an employer may discriminate on the basis of “religion, sex, or national origin in those certain instances where religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise.” 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-2(e)(l). We therefore turn to the question whether Johnson Controls’ fetal-protection pol*201icy is one of those “certain instances” that come within the BFOQ exception.

The BFOQ defense is written narrowly, and this Court has read it narrowly. See, e. g., Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U. S. 321, 332-337 (1977); Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U. S. 111, 122-125 (1985). We have read the BFOQ language of § 4(f) of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), 81 Stat. 603, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 623(f)(1), which tracks the BFOQ provision in Title VII, just as narrowly. See Western Air Lines, Inc. v. Criswell, 472 U. S. 400 (1985). Our emphasis on the restrictive scope of the BFOQ defense is grounded on both the language and the legislative history of § 703.

The wording of the BFOQ defense contains several terms of restriction that indicate that the exception reaches only special situations. The statute thus limits the situations in which discrimination is permissible to “certain instances” where sex discrimination is “reasonably necessary” to the “normal operation” of the “particular” business. Each one of these terms — certain, normal, particular — prevents the use of general subjective standards and favors an objective, verifiable requirement. But the most telling term is “occupational”; this indicates that these objective, verifiable requirements must concern job-related skills and aptitudes.

Justice White defines “occupational” as meaning related to a job. Post, at 212, n. 1. According to him, any discriminatory requirement imposed by an employer is “job-related” simply because the employer has chosen to make the requirement a condition of employment. In effect, he argues that sterility may be an occupational qualification for women because Johnson Controls has chosen to require it. This reading of “occupational” renders the word mere surplusage. “Qualification” by itself would encompass an employer’s idiosyncratic requirements. By modifying “qualification” with “occupational,” Congress narrowed the term to qualifications that affect an employee’s ability to do the job.

*202Johnson Controls argues that its fetal-protection policy falls within the so-called safety exception to the BFOQ. Our cases have stressed that discrimination on the basis of sex because of safety concerns is allowed only in narrow circumstances. In Dothard v. Rawlinson, this Court indicated that danger to a woman herself does not justify discrimination. 433 U. S., at 335. We there allowed the employer to hire only male guards in contact areas of maximum-security male penitentiaries only because more was at stake than the “individual woman’s decision to weigh and accept the risks of employment.” Ibid. We found sex to be a BFOQ inasmuch as the employment of a female guard would create real risks of safety to others if violence broke out because the guard was a woman. Sex discrimination was tolerated because sex was related to the guard’s ability to do the job — maintaining prison security. We also required in Dothard a high correlation between sex and ability to perform job functions and refused to allow employers to use sex as a proxy for strength although it might be a fairly accurate one.

Similarly, some courts have approved airlines’ layoffs of pregnant flight attendants at different points during the first five months of pregnancy on the ground that the employer’s policy was necessary to ensure the safety of passengers. See Harriss v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 649 F. 2d 670 (CA9 1980); Burwell v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 633 F. 2d 361 (CA4 1980), cert. denied, 450 U. S. 965 (1981); Condit v. United Air Lines, Inc., 558 F. 2d 1176 (CA4 1977), cert. denied, 435 U. S. 934 (1978); In re National Airlines, Inc., 434 F. Supp. 249 (SD Fla. 1977). In two of these cases, the courts pointedly indicated that fetal, as opposed to passenger, safety was best left to the mother. Burwell, 633 F. 2d, at 371; National Airlines, 434 F. Supp., at 259.

We considered safety to third parties in Western Airlines, Inc. v. Criswell, supra, in the context of the ADEA. We focused upon “the nature of the flight engineer’s tasks,” and the “actual capabilities of persons over age 60” in relation to *203those tasks. 472 U. S., at 406. Our safety concerns were not independent of the individual’s ability to perform the assigned tasks, but rather involved the possibility that, because of age-connected debility, a flight engineer might not properly assist the pilot, and might thereby cause a safety emergency. Furthermore, although we considered the safety of third parties in Dothard and Criswell, those third parties were indispensable to the particular business at issue. In Dothard, the third parties were the inmates; in Criswell, the third parties were the passengers on the plane. We stressed that in order to qualify as a BFOQ, a job qualification must relate to the “‘essence,’” Dothard, 433 U. S., at 333 (emphasis deleted), or to the “central mission of the employer’s business,” Criswell, 472 U. S., at 413.

Justice White ignores the “essence of the business” test and so concludes that “protecting fetal safety while carrying out the duties of battery manufacturing is as much a legitimate concern as is safety to third parties in guarding prisons (Dothard) or flying airplanes (Criswell).” Post, at 217. By limiting his discussion to cost and safety concerns and rejecting the “essence of the business” test that our case law has established, he seeks to expand what is now the narrow BFOQ defense. Third-party safety considerations properly entered into the BFOQ analysis in Dothard and Criswell because they went to the core of the employee’s job performance. Moreover, that performance involved the central purpose of the enterprise. Dothard, 433 U. S., at 335 (“The essence of a correctional counselor’s job is to maintain prison security”); Criswell, 472 U. S., at 413 (the central mission of the airline’s business was the safe transportation of its passengers). Justice White attempts to transform this case into one of customer safety. The unconceived fetuses of Johnson Controls’ female employees, however, are neither customers nor third parties whose safety is essential to the business of battery manufacturing. . No one can disregard the possibility of injury to future children; the BFOQ, how*204ever, is not so broad that it transforms this deep social concern into an essential aspect of battery making.

Our case law, therefore, makes clear that the safety exception is limited to instances in which sex or pregnancy actually interferes with the employee’s ability to perform the job. This approach is consistent with the language of the BFOQ provision itself, for it suggests that permissible distinctions based on sex must relate to ability to perform the duties of the job. Johnson Controls suggests, however, that we expand the exception to allow fetal-protection policies that mandate particular standards for pregnant or fertile women. We decline to do so. Such an expansion contradicts not only the language of the BFOQ and the narrowness of its exception, but also the plain language and history of the PDA.

The PDA’s amendment to Title VII contains a BFOQ standard of its own: Unless pregnant employees differ from others “in their ability or inability to work,” they must be “treated the same” as other employees “for all employment-related purposes.” 42 U. S. C. §2000e(k). This language clearly sets forth Congress’ remedy for discrimination on the basis of pregnancy and potential pregnancy. Women who are either pregnant or potentially pregnant must be treated like others “similar in their ability ... to work.” Ibid. In other words, women as capable of doing their jobs as their male counterparts may not be forced to choose between having a child and having a job.

Justice White asserts that the PDA did not alter the BFOQ defense. Post, at 218. He arrives at this conclusion by ignoring the second clause of the Act, which states that “women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes ... as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work.” 42 U. S. C. § 2000e(k). Until this day, every Member of this Court had acknowledged that “[t]he second clause [of the PDA] could not be clearer: it mandates that pregnant employees ‘shall be *205treated the same for all employment-related purposes’ as nonpregnant employees similarly situated with respect to their ability or inability to work.” California Federal Savings and Loan Assn. v. Guerra, 479 U. S. 272, 297 (1987) (White, J., dissenting). Justice White now seeks to read the second clause out of the Act.

The legislative history confirms what the language of the PDA compels. Both the House and Senate Reports accompanying the legislation indicate that this statutory standard was chosen to protect female workers from being treated differently from other employees simply because of their capacity to bear children. See Amending Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964, S. Rep. No. 96-331, pp. 4-6 (1977):

“Under this bill, the treatment of pregnant women in covered employment must focus not on their condition alone but on the actual effects of that condition on their ability to work. Pregnant women who are able to work must be permitted to work on the same conditions as other employees ....

“[U]nder this bill, employers will no longer be permitted to force women who become pregnant to stop working regardless of their ability to continue.”

See also Prohibition of Sex Discrimination Based on Pregnancy, H. R. Rep. No. 95-948, pp. 3-6 (1978).

This history counsels against expanding the BFOQ to allow fetal-protection policies. The Senate Report quoted above states that employers may not require a pregnant woman to stop working at any time during her pregnancy unless she is unable to do her work. Employment late in pregnancy often imposes risks on the unborn child, see Chavkin, Walking a Tightrope: Pregnancy, Parenting, and Work, in Double Exposure 196, 196-202 (W. Chavkin ed. 1984), but Congress indicated that the employer may take into account only the woman’s ability to get her job done. See Becker, From Muller v. Oregon to Fetal Vulnerability Policies, 53 U. Chi. *206L. Rev. 1219, 1255-1256 (1986). With the PDA, Congress made clear that the decision to become pregnant or to work while being either pregnant or capable of becoming pregnant was reserved for each individual woman to make for herself.

We conclude that the language of both the BFOQ provision and the PDA which amended it, as well as the legislative history and the case law, prohibit an employer from discriminating against a woman because of her capacity to become pregnant unless her reproductive potential prevents her from performing the duties of her job. We reiterate our holdings in Criswell and Dothard that an employer must direct its concerns about a woman’s ability to perform her job safely and efficiently to those aspects of the woman’s job-related activities that fall within the “essence” of the particular business.4

V

We have no difficulty concluding that Johnson Controls cannot establish a BFOQ. Fertile women, as far as appears in the record, participate in the manufacture of batteries as efficiently as anyone else. Johnson Controls’ professed moral and ethical concerns about the welfare of the next generation do not suffice to establish a BFOQ of female sterility. Decisions about the welfare of future children must be left to the parents who conceive, bear, support, and raise them rather than to the employers who hire those parents. Congress has mandated this choice through Title VII, as amended by the *207PDA. Johnson Controls has attempted to exclude women because of their reproductive capacity. Title VII and the PDA simply do not allow a woman’s dismissal because of her failure to submit to sterilization.

Nor can concerns about the welfare of the next generation be considered a part of the “essence” of Johnson Controls’ business. Judge Easterbrook in this case pertinently observed: “It is word play to say that ‘the job’ at Johnson [Controls] is to make batteries without risk to fetuses in the same way ‘the job’ at Western Air Lines is to fly planes without crashing.” 886 F. 2d, at 913.

Johnson Controls argues that it must exclude all fertile women because it is impossible to tell which women will become pregnant while working with lead. This argument is somewhat academic in light of our conclusion that the company may not exclude fertile women at all; it perhaps is worth noting, however, that Johnson Controls has shown no “factual basis for believing that all or substantially all women would be unable to perform safely and efficiently the duties of the job involved.” Weeks v. Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 408 F. 2d 228, 235 (CA5 1969), quoted with approval in Dothard, 433 U. S., at 333. Even on this sparse record, it is apparent that Johnson Controls is concerned about only a small minority of women. Of the eight pregnancies reported among the female employees, it has not been shown that any of the babies have birth defects or other abnormalities. The record does not reveal the birth rate for Johnson Controls’ female workers, but national statistics show that approximately nine percent of all fertile women become pregnant each year. The birthrate drops to two percent for blue collar workers over age 30. See Becker, 53 U. Chi. L. Rev., at 1233. Johnson Controls’ fear of prenatal injury, no matter how sincere, does not begin to show that substantially all of its fertile women employees are incapable of doing their jobs.

*208I — 1 >

A word about tort liability and the increased cost of fertile women in the workplace is perhaps necessary. One of the dissenting judges in this case expressed concern about an employer’s tort liability and concluded that liability for a potential injury to a fetus is a social cost that Title VII does not require a company to ignore. 886 F. 2d, at 904-905. It is correct to say that Title VII does not prevent the employer from having a conscience. The statute, however, does prevent sex-specific fetal-protection policies. These two aspects of Title VII do not conflict.

More than 40 States currently recognize a right to recover for a prenatal injury based either on negligence or on wrongful death. See, e. g., Wolfe v. Isbell, 291 Ala. 327, 333-334, 280 So. 2d 758, 763 (1973); Simon v. Mullin, 34 Conn. Supp. 139, 147, 380 A. 2d 1353, 1357 (1977). See also Note, 22 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 747, 754-756, and nn. 54, 57, and 58 (1988) (listing cases). According to Johnson Controls, however, the company complies with the lead standard developed by OSHA and warns its female employees about the damaging effects of lead. It is worth noting that OSHA gave the problem of lead lengthy consideration and concluded that “there is no basis whatsoever for the claim that women of childbearing age should be excluded from the workplace in order to protect the fetus or the course of pregnancy.” 43 Fed. Reg. 52952, 52966 (1978). See also id., at 54354, 54398. Instead, OSHA established a series of mandatory protections which, taken together, “should effectively minimize any risk to the fetus and newborn child.” Id., at 52966. See 29 CFR § 1910.1025(k)(ii) (1990). Without negligence, it would be difficult for a court to find liability on the part of the employer. If, under general tort principles, Title VII bans sex-specific fetal-protection policies, the employer fully informs the woman of the risk, and the employer has not acted negligently, the basis for holding an employer liable seems remote at best.

*209Although the issue is not before us, Justice White observes that “it is far from clear that compliance with Title VII will pre-empt state tort liability.” Post, at 213. The cases relied upon by him to support his prediction, however, are inapposite. For example, in California Federal Savings and Loan Assn. v. Guerra, 479 U. S. 272 (1987), we considered a California statute that expanded upon the requirements of the PDA and concluded that the statute was not pre-empted by Title VII because it was not inconsistent with the purposes of the federal statute and did not require an act that was unlawful under Title VII. Id., at 291-292. Here, in contrast, the tort liability that Justice White fears will punish employers for complying with Title VIPs clear command. When it is impossible for an employer to comply with both state and federal requirements, this Court has ruled that federal law pre-empts that of the States. See, e. g., Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U. S. 132, 142-143 (1963).

This Court faced a similar situation in Farmers Union v. WDAY, Inc., 360 U. S. 525 (1959). In WDAY, it held that § 315(a) of the Federal Communications Act of 1934 barred a broadcasting station from removing defamatory statements contained in speeches broadcast by candidates for public office. It then considered a libel action which arose as a result of a speech made over the radio and television facilities of WDAY by a candidate for the 1956 senatorial race in North Dakota. It held that the statutory prohibition of censorship carried with it an immunity from liability for defamatory statements made by the speaker. To allow libel actions “would sanction the unconscionable result of permitting civil and perhaps criminal liability to be imposed for the very conduct the statute demands of the licensee.” Id., at 531. It concluded:

“We are aware that causes of action for libel are widely recognized throughout the States. But we have not hesitated to abrogate state law where satisfied that *210its enforcement would stand ‘as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.’” Id., at 535, quoting Bethlehem Steel Co. v. New York State Labor Relations Bd., 330 U. S. 767, 773 (1947).

If state tort law furthers discrimination in the workplace and prevents employers from hiring women who are capable of manufacturing the product as efficiently as men, then it will impede the accomplishment of Congress’ goals in enacting Title VII. Because Johnson Controls has not argued that it faces any costs from tort liability, not to mention crippling ones, the pre-emption question is not before us. We therefore say no more than that the concurrence’s speculation appears unfounded as well as premature.

The tort-liability argument reduces to two equally unpersuasive propositions. First, Johnson Controls attempts to solve the problem of reproductive health hazards by resorting to an exclusionary policy. Title VII plainly forbids illegal sex discrimination as a method of diverting attention from an employer’s obligation to police the workplace. Second, the specter of an award of damages reflects a fear that hiring fertile women will cost more. The extra cost of employing members of one sex, however, does not provide an affirmative Title VII defense for a discriminatory refusal to hire members of that gender. See Manhart, 435 U. S., at 716-718, and n. 32. Indeed, in passing the PDA, Congress considered at length the considerable cost of providing equal treatment of pregnancy and related conditions, but made the “decision to forbid special treatment of pregnancy despite the social costs associated therewith.” Arizona Governing Comm. for Tax Deferred Annuity and Deferred Compensation Plans v. Norris, 463 U. S. 1073, 1085, n. 14 (1983) (opinion of Marshall, J.). See Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U. S. 228 (1989).

We, of course, are not presented with, nor do we decide, a case in which costs would be so prohibitive as to threaten the *211survival of the employer’s business. We merely reiterate our prior holdings that the incremental cost of hiring women cannot justify discriminating against them.

VII

Our holding today that Title VII, as so amended, forbids sex-specific fetal-protection policies is neither remarkable nor unprecedented. Concern for a woman’s existing or potential offspring historically has been the excuse for denying women equal employment opportunities. See, e. g., Muller v. Oregon, 208 U. S. 412 (1908). Congress in the PDA prohibited discrimination on the basis of a woman’s ability to become pregnant. We do no more than hold that the PDA means what it says.

It is no more appropriate for the courts than it is for individual employers to decide whether a woman’s reproductive role is more important to herself and her family than her economic role. Congress has left this choice to the woman as hers to make.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Justice White,

with whom The Chief Justice and Justice Kennedy join, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

The Court properly holds that Johnson Controls’ fetal-protection policy overtly discriminates against women, and thus is prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 unless it falls within the bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) exception, set forth at 42 U. S. C. §2000e-2(e). The Court erroneously holds, however, that the BFOQ defense is so narrow that it could never justify a sex-specific fetal-protection policy. I nevertheless concur in the judgment of reversal because on the record before us summary judgment in favor of Johnson Controls was improperly en*212tered by the District Court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

I

In evaluating the scope of the BFOQ defense, the proper starting point is the language of the statute. Cf. Demarest v. Manspeaker, 498 U. S. 184, 190 (1991); Board of Ed. of Westside Community Schools (Dist. 66) v. Mergens, 496 U. S. 226, 237 (1990). Title VII forbids discrimination on the basis of sex, except “in those certain instances where . . . sex ... is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise.” 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-2(e)(l). For the fetal-protection policy involved in this case to be a BFOQ, therefore, the policy must be “reasonably necessary” to the “normal operation” of making batteries, which is Johnson Controls’ “particular business.” Although that is a difficult standard to satisfy, nothing in the statute’s language indicates that it could never support a sex-specific fetal-protection policy.1

On the contrary, a fetal-protection policy would be justified under the terms of the statute if, for example, an employer could show that exclusion of women from certain jobs was reasonably necessary to avoid substantial tort liability. Common sense tells us that it is part of the normal operation of business concerns to avoid causing injury to third parties, as well as to employees, if for no other reason than to avoid *213tort liability and its substantial costs. This possibility of tort liability is not hypothetical; every State currently allows children born alive to recover in tort for prenatal injuries caused by third parties, see W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton, & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on Law of Torts § 55, p. 368 (5th ed. 1984), and an increasing number of courts have recognized a right to recover even for prenatal injuries caused by torts committed prior to conception, see 3 F. Harper, F. James, & 0. Gray, Law of Torts § 18.3, pp. 677-678, n. 15 (2d ed. 1986).

The Court dismisses the possibility of tort liability by no more than speculating that if “Title VII bans sex-specific fetal-protection policies, the employer fully informs the woman of the risk, and the employer has not acted negligently, the basis for holding an employer liable seems remote at best.” Ante, at 208. Such speculation will be small comfort to employers. First, it is far from clear that compliance with Title VII will pre-empt state tort liability, and the Court offers no support for that proposition.2 Second, although warnings may preclude claims by injured employees, they will not preclude claims by injured children because the general rule is that parents cannot waive causes of action on behalf of their children, and the parents’ negligence will not be imputed to the children.3 Finally, although state tort liabil*214ity for prenatal injuries generally requires negligence, it will be difficult for employers to determine in advance what will constitute negligence. Compliance with OSHA standards, for example, has been held not to be a defense to state tort or criminal liability. See National Solid Wastes Management Assn. v. Killian, 918 F. 2d 671, 680, n. 9 (CA7 1990) (collecting cases); see also 29 U. S. C. § 653(b)(4). Moreover, it is possible that employers will be held strictly liable, if, for example, their manufacturing process is considered “abnormally dangerous. ” See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 869, Comment b (1979).

Relying on Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power v. Manhart, 435 U. S. 702 (1978), the Court contends that tort liability cannot justify a fetal-protection policy because the extra costs of hiring women is not a defense under Title VII. Ante, at 210. This contention misrepresents our decision in Manhart. There, we held that a requirement that female employees contribute more than male employees to a pension fund, in order to reflect the greater longevity of women, constituted discrimination against women under Title VII because it treated them as a class rather than as individuals. 435 U. S., at 708, 716-717. We did not in that case address in any detail the nature of the BFOQ defense, and we certainly did not hold that cost was irrelevant to the BFOQ analysis. Rather, we merely stated in a footnote that “there has been no showing that sex distinctions are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the Department’s retirement plan.” Id., at 716, n. 30. We further noted that although Title VII does not contain a “cost-justification defense comparable to the affirmative defense available in a price dis*215crimination suit,” “no defense based on the total cost of employing men and women was attempted in this case.” Id., at 716-717, and n. 32.

Prior decisions construing the BFOQ defense confirm that the defense is broad enough to include considerations of cost and safety of the sort that could form the basis for an employer’s adoption of a fetal-protection policy. In Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U. S. 321 (1977), the Court held that being male was a BFOQ for “contact” guard positions in Alabama’s maximum-security male penitentiaries. The Court first took note of the actual conditions of the prison environment: “In a prison system where violence is the order of the day, where inmate access to guards is facilitated by dormitory living arrangements, where every institution is understaffed, and where a substantial portion of the inmate population is composed of sex offenders mixed at random with other prisoners, there are few visible deterrents to inmate assaults on women custodians.” Id., at 335-336. The Court also stressed that “[m]ore [was] at stake” than a risk to individual female employees: “The likelihood that inmates would assault a woman because she was a woman would pose a real threat not only to the victim of the assault but also to the basic control of the penitentiary and protection of its inmates and the other security personnel.” Ibid. Under those circumstances, the Court observed that “it would be an oversimplification to characterize [the exclusion of women] as an exercise in ‘romantic paternalism.’ Cf. Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U. S. 677, 684.” Id., at 335.

We revisited the BFOQ defense in Western Air Lines, Inc. v. Criswell, 472 U. S. 400 (1985), this time in the context of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). There, we endorsed the two-part inquiry for evaluating a BFOQ defense used by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Usery v. Tamiami Trail Tours, Inc., 531 F. 2d 224 (1976). First, the job qualification must not be “so peripheral to the central mission of the employer’s business” that no dis*216crimination could be “ ‘reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the particular business.’” 472 U. S., at 413. Although safety is not such a peripheral concern, id., at 413, 419,4 the inquiry “‘adjusts to the safety factor’” — “‘[t]he greater the safety factor, measured by the likelihood of harm and the probable severity of that harm in case of an accident, the more stringent may be the job qualifications,’ ” id., at 413 (quoting Tamiami, supra, at 236). Second, the employer must show either that all or substantially all persons excluded ‘““would be unable to perform safely and efficiently the duties of the job involved,”’” or that it is “‘“impossible or highly impractical”’” to deal with them on an individual basis. 472 U. S., at 414 (quoting Tamiami, supra, at 235 (quoting Weeks v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 408 F. 2d 228, 235 (CA5 1969))). We further observed that this inquiry properly takes into account an employer’s interest in safety — “[w]hen an employer establishes that a job qualification has been carefully formulated to respond to documented concerns for public safety, it will not be overly burdensome to persuade a trier of fact that the qualification is ‘reasonably necessary’ to safe operation of the business.” 472 U. S., at 419.

Dothard and Criswell make clear that avoidance of substantial safety risks to third parties is inherently part of both an employee’s ability to perform a job and an employer’s *217“normal operation” of its business. Indeed, in both cases, the Court approved the statement in Weeks v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., supra, that an employer could establish a BFOQ defense by showing that “all or substantially all women would be unable to perform safely and efficiently the duties of the job involved.” Id., at 235 (emphasis added). See Criswell, 472 U. S., at 414; Dothard, supra, at 333. The Court’s statement in this case that “the safety exception is limited to instances in which sex or pregnancy actually interferes with the employee’s ability to perform the job,” ante, at 204, therefore adds no support to its conclusion that a fetal-protection policy could never be justified as a BFOQ. On the facts of this case, for example, protecting fetal safety while carrying out the duties of battery manufacturing is as much a legitimate concern as is safety to third parties in guarding prisons (Dothard) or flying airplanes (Criswell). 5

Dothard and Criswell also confirm that costs are relevant in determining whether a discriminatory policy is reasonably necessary for the normal operation of a business. In Doth-ard, the safety problem that justified exclusion of women from the prison guard positions was largely a result of inadequate staff and facilities. See 433 U. S., at 335. If the cost of employing women could not be considered, the employer there should have been required to hire more staff and restructure the prison environment rather than exclude women. Similarly, in Criswell the airline could have been *218required to hire more pilots and install expensive monitoring devices rather than discriminate against older employees. The BFOQ statute, however, reflects “Congress’ unwillingness to require employers to change the very nature of their operations.” Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U. S. 228, 242 (1989) (plurality opinion).

The PDA, contrary to the Court’s assertion, ante, at 204, did not restrict the scope of the BFOQ defense. The PDA was only an amendment to the “Definitions” section of Title VII, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e, and did not purport to eliminate or alter the BFOQ defense. Rather, it merely clarified Title VII to make it clear that pregnancy and related conditions are included within Title VII’s antidiscrimination provisions. As we have already recognized, “the purpose of the PDA was simply to make the treatment of pregnancy consistent with general Title VII principles.” Arizona Governing Comm. for Tax Deferred Annuity and Deferred Compensation Plans v. Norris, 463 U. S. 1073, 1085, n. 14 (1983).6

This interpretation is confirmed by the PDA’s legislative history. As discussed in Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. EEOC, 462 U. S. 669, 678-679, and n. 17 (1983), the PDA was designed to overrule the decision in General Electric Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U. S. 125 (1976), where the Court *219had held that “an exclusion of pregnancy from a disability-benefits plan providing general coverage is not a gender-based discrimination at all.” Id., at 136. The PDA thus “makes clear that it is discriminatory to treat pregnancy-related conditions less favorably than other medical conditions.” Newport News, supra, at 684. It does not, however, alter the standards for employer defenses. The Senate Report, for example, stated that the PDA “defines sex discrimination, as proscribed in the existing statute, to include these physiological occurrences [pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions] peculiar to women; it does not change the application of Title VII to sex discrimination in any other way.” S. Rep. No. 95-331, pp. 3-4 (1977) (emphasis added). Similarly, the House Report stated that “[pjregnancy-based distinctions will be subject to the same scrutiny on the same terms as other acts of sex discrimination proscribed in the existing statute.” H. R. Rep. No. 95-948, p. 4 (1978) (emphasis added).7

In enacting the BFOQ standard, “Congress did not ignore the public interest in safety.” Criswell, 472 U. S., at 419. The Court’s narrow interpretation of the BFOQ defense in this case, however, means that an employer cannot exclude even pregnant women from an environment highly toxic to their fetuses. It is foolish to think that Congress intended such a result, and neither the language of the BFOQ exception nor our cases requires it.8

*220II

Despite my disagreement with the Court concerning the scope of the BFOQ defense, I concur in reversing the Court of Appeals because that court erred in affirming the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Johnson Controls. First, the Court of Appeals erred in failing to consider the level of risk avoidance that was part of Johnson Controls’ “normal operation.” Although the court did conclude that there was a “substantial risk” to fetuses from lead exposure in fertile women, 886 F. 2d 871, 879-883, 898 (CA7 1989), it merely meant that there was a high risk that some fetal injury would occur absent a fetal-protection policy. That analysis, of course, fails to address the extent of fetal injury that is likely to occur.9 If the fetal-protection policy insists on a risk-avoidance level substantially higher than other risk lev*221els tolerated by Johnson Controls such as risks to employees and consumers, the policy should not constitute a BFOQ.10

Second, even without more information about the normal level of risk at Johnson Controls, the fetal-protection policy at issue here reaches too far. This is evident both in its presumption that, absent medical documentation to the contrary, all women are fertile regardless of their age, see id., at 876, n. 8, and in its exclusion of presumptively fertile women from positions that might result in a promotion to a position involving high lead exposure, id., at 877. There has been no showing that either of those aspects of the policy is reasonably necessary to ensure safe and efficient operation of Johnson Controls’ battery-manufacturing business. Of course, these infirmities in the company’s policy do not warrant invalidating the entire fetal-protection program.

Third, it should be recalled that until 1982 Johnson Controls operated without an exclusionary policy, and it has not identified any grounds for believing that its current policy is reasonably necessary to its normal operations. Although it is now more aware of some of the dangers of lead exposure, id., at 899, it has not shown that the risks of fetal harm or the costs associated with it have substantially increased. Cf. Manhart, 435 U. S., at 716, n. 30, in which we rejected a BFOQ defense because the employer had operated prior to the discrimination with no significant adverse effects.

Finally, the Court of Appeals failed to consider properly petitioners’ evidence of harm to offspring caused by lead exposure in males. The court considered that evidence only in its discussion of the business necessity standard, in which it focused on whether petitioners had met their burden of proof. 886 F. 2d, at 889-890. The burden of proving that a discriminatory qualification is a BFOQ, however, rests with *222the employer. See, e. g., Price Waterhouse, 490 U. S., at 248; Dothard, 433 U. S., at 333. Thus, the court should have analyzed whether the evidence was sufficient for petitioners to survive summary judgment in light of respondent’s burden of proof to establish a BFOQ. Moreover, the court should not have discounted the evidence as “speculative,” 886 F. 2d, at 889, merely because it was based on animal studies. We have approved the use of animal studies to assess risks, see Industrial Union Dept. v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U. S. 607, 657, n. 64 (1980), and OSHA uses animal studies in establishing its lead control regulations, see United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO-CLC v. Marshall, 208 U. S. App. D. C. 60, 128, n. 97, 647 F. 2d 1189, 1257, n. 97 (1980), cert. denied, 453 U. S. 913 (1981). It seems clear that if the Court of Appeals had properly analyzed that evidence, it would have concluded that summary judgment against petitioners was not appropriate because there was a dispute over a material issue of fact.

As Judge Posner observed below:

“The issue of the legality of fetal protection is as novel and difficult as it is contentious and the most sensible way to approach it at this early stage is on a case-by-case basis, involving careful examination of the facts as developed by the full adversary process of a trial. The record in this case is too sparse. The district judge jumped the gun. By affirming on this scanty basis we may be encouraging incautious employers to adopt fetal protection policies that could endanger the jobs of millions of women for minor gains in fetal safety and health.

“But although the defendant did not present enough evidence to warrant the grant of summary judgment in its favor, there is no ground for barring it from presenting additional evidence at trial. Therefore it would be equally precipitate for us to direct the entry of judgment in the plaintiffs’ favor . . . .” 886 F. 2d, at 908.

*223Justice Scalia,

concurring in the judgment.

I generally agree with the Court’s analysis, but have some reservations, several of which bear mention.

First, I think it irrelevant that there was “evidence in the record about the debilitating effect of lead exposure on the male reproductive system,” ante, at 198. Even without such evidence, treating women differently “on the basis of pregnancy” constitutes discrimination “on the basis of sex,” because Congress has unequivocally said so. Pregnancy Discrimination Act, 92 Stat. 2076, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e(k).

Second, the Court points out that “Johnson Controls has shown no factual basis for believing that all or substantially all women would be unable to perform safely . . . the duties of the job involved,” ante, at 207 (internal quotation marks omitted). In my view, this is not only “somewhat academic in light of our conclusion that the company may not exclude fertile women at all,” ibid.; it is entirely irrelevant. By reason of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, it would not matter if all pregnant women placed their children at risk in taking these jobs, just as it does not matter if no men do so. As Judge Easterbrook put it in his dissent below: “Title VII gives parents the power to make occupational decisions affecting their families. A legislative forum is available to those who believe that such decisions should be made elsewhere.” 886 F. 2d 871, 915 (CA7 1989).

Third, I am willing to assume, as the Court intimates, ante, at 208-211, that any action required by Title VII cannot give rise to liability under state tort law. That assumption, however, does not answer the question whether an action is required by Title VII (including the BFOQ provision) even if it is subject to liability under state tort law. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that Title VII has accommodated state tort law through the BFOQ exception. However, all that need be said in the present case is that Johnson has not demonstrated a substantial risk of tort liability — which is *224alone enough to defeat a tort-based assertion of the BFOQ exception.

Last, the Court goes far afield, it seems to me, in suggesting that increased cost alone — short of “costs ... so prohibitive as to threaten the survival of the employer’s business,” ante, at 210 — cannot support a BFOQ defense. See ante, at 206. I agree with Justice White’s concurrence, ante, at 214, that nothing in our prior cases suggests this, and in my view it is wrong. I think, for example, that a shipping company may refuse to hire pregnant women as crew members on long voyages because the on-board facilities for foreseeable emergencies, though quite feasible, would be inordinately expensive. In the present case, however, Johnson has not asserted a cost-based BFOQ.

I concur in the judgment of the Court.

FERGUSON, Circuit Judge:

Fernandez appeals a judgment in favor of her former employer on her claim of sex discrimination. The district court found that the employer’s decision not to promote Fernandez was based on her lack of qualifications rather than her sex and was consequently justified by a valid business purpose. Alternatively, it found masculine gender a bona fide occupational qualification since the job sought required dealings with nations that may refuse to transact business with women. The decision is affirmed solely on the former ground.

I.

Wynn Oil Company (Wynn) is an international petro-chemical manufacturer located in Orange County, California. It hired Fernandez in 1968. From 1972 through 1973, Fernandez served as administrative assistant to Louis Dashwood, the vice-president of Wynn’s International Operations division.

Dashwood testified, as a witness for Fernandez, that during this time Fernandez performed many functions of his job but he chose not to promote her because she was so valuable to him as an administrative assistant. He also testified that he felt Latin American clients would react negatively to a woman vice-president of International Operations.

Joseph Borrello was subsequently appointed Director of International Operations (DIO). In October 1975, Dashwood’s employment terminated and Borrello became vice-president of Worldwide Marketing. Within three days, Borrello informed Fernandez of plans to terminate her administrative assistant position. In March 1976, Borrello hired Arturo Matthews to fill the position of DIO, although Fernandez had requested consideration for the job. In April, Fernandez accepted an assignment as manager of a different division. She was discharged in February 1977.

*1275In January 1978, Fernandez filed a complaint in district court against Wynn Oil Company, alleging that Borrello’s refusal to promote her to the position of DIO was an act of sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a). Wynn defended on the ground that Fernandez’ lack of qualifications for the job, rather than her sex, prompted Borrello’s decision. Alternatively, Wynn argued that male sex is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ), 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(e), for a job performed in foreign countries where women are barred from business.

Following a bench trial, the district court found for Wynn on both alternative grounds. Fernandez claims on appeal that the district court erred in reaching each of its conclusions. Wynn argues that both issues were determined correctly, but requests that we abandon the lower court’s discussion of the BFOQ defense because sex. was not a factor in Borrello’s refusal to promote Fernandez. The American Jewish Congress, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and Women’s Equal Rights Legal Defense and Education Fund have presented amicus curiae briefs in opposition to the district court’s BFOQ determination.

II.

Discrimination cases under Title VII involve two common methods of discriminatory behavior by employers. In disparate treatment cases, the employer “treats people less favorably than others because of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324, 335 n.15,97 S.Ct. 1843,1854 n.15,52 L.Ed.2d 396 (1977). In disparate impact cases, the employer uses “employment practices that are facially neutral ... but in fact fall more harshly on one group than another ... . ” Id. The instant appeal falls in the first category.

Under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, a party complaining of discrimination by disparate treatment establishes a prima facie case by showing that (1) she was within a protected group; (2) she applied and was qualified for a job for which the company was seeking applicants; (3) she was rejected; and (4) after her rejection, the employer continued to seek applicants. McDonnell-Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 1824, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). If a prima facie case is established, the employer bears the burden of demonstrating that it refused the applicant for a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason. Id.

The district court in the instant case found that Fernandez failed to prove a prima facie case because she did not demonstrate that she was qualified for the job as required by factor (2), above. Further, it found that even had Fernandez established a prima facie case, her qualifications compared to Matthews’ justified Borrello’s hiring decision for sound business reasons. Unless these findings are clearly erroneous, they must not be disturbed on appeal. McLean v. Phillips-Ramsey, Inc., 624 F.2d 70, 71 (9th Cir. 1980).

The record supports the district court’s findings. Testimony was presented that Fernandez was not proficient in the English language and had difficulty with articulation. She had no secondary education. Borrello testified that he did not seriously consider Fernandez because she had a drinking problem and erratic work habits. He also testified that she was indiscreet in her criticism of him and in infringing on the job authority of others. Finally, she had refused an assignment to address a group of listeners and there was testimony that she had exhibited poor supervisory and marketing skills.

Fernandez has therefore failed to demonstrate that the district court erred in failing to find her qualified for the DIO position. If an applicant is not qualified for the job in question, she has failed to establish a prima facie case. Morita v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group, 541 F.2d 217, 219 (9th Cir. 1976), cert. den., 429 U.S. 1050, 97 S.Ct. 761, 50 L.Ed,2d 765 *1276(1977).1 Congress did not intend the Civil Rights Act to saddle business with unqualified employees. Id.

Furthermore, even if Fernandez had been able to establish a prima facie case, the district court was justified in ruling for Wynn by finding that Wynn had a legitimate, non-discriminatory purpose in preferring to hire Matthews. The record demonstrates that Matthews held a master’s degree in business administration and had a prior management record at Wynn in international and domestic markets. He had implemented a highly successful merchandising program in a Wynn industrial division. He had demonstrated skills in management, delegation of work, supervision, and public speaking. Borrello testified that all of these qualities were considered necessary or highly desirable for the DIO position.

An employer’s decision may be justified by the hired employee’s superior qualifications unless the purported justification is a pretext for invidious discrimination. Ward v. Westland Plastics, Inc., 651 F.2d 1266, 1269 (9th Cir. 1980). The record supports the trial court’s finding of Matthews’ superior qualifications. It does not show that Fernandez countered this justification with proof of pretext.

We hold that the district court was not clearly in error in finding, first, that Fernandez was unqualified and had accordingly failed to allege a prima facie case and, second, that sound business practice justified Borrello’s decision to hire Matthews.

III.

The district court found masculine gender a bona fide occupational qualification for the position in question. It based this conclusion on testimony that Wynn’s South American clients would refuse to deal with a female DIO. The district court erred in its factual findings and legal conclusions.

Testimony in the record indicated that a female would have difficulty in conducting business in South America from a hotel room. No proof was adduced, however, that the position required work of this nature. Nor does the record provide any basis for the district court’s findings that hiring Fernandez would “destroy the essence” of Wynn’s business or “create serious safety and efficacy problems.” There is, in short, no factual basis for linking sex with job performance. The BFOQ finding is accordingly factually erroneous.

Even if the record supported the district court’s factual conclusions, we would be compelled to reject the BFOQ finding in this case because it is based on an erroneous interpretation of Title VII. The district court found that sex discrimination must be compelled by business considerations in order to qualify as a BFOQ. It also stated that customer preferences should not be bootstrapped to the level of business necessity. Nevertheless, it held that customer preferences rise to the dignity of a bona fide occupational qualification if “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 efficacy problems.” On this basis, the district court found the customer preferences of Wynn’s clients a BFOQ.

That conclusion cannot stand. Title 42, United States Code, § 2000e-2(e) permits hiring decisions to be based on gender if gender is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business. However, stereotypic impressions of male and female roles do not qualify gender as a BFOQ. City of Los Angeles Dept. of Water v. Manhart, 435 U.S. 702, 707, 98 S.Ct. 1370, 1374, 55 L.Ed.2d 657 (1978). See Blake v. City of Los Angeles, 595 F.2d 1367 (9th Cir. 1979), cert. den., 446 U.S. 928, 100 S.Ct. 1865, 64 L.Ed.2d 281 (1980). Nor does *1277stereotyped customer preference justify a sexually discriminatory practice. Diaz v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 442 F.2d 385, 389 (5th Cir.), cert. den., 404 U.S. 950, 92 S.Ct. 275, 30 L.Ed.2d 267 (1971). Furthermore, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has held that the need to accommodate racially discriminatory policies of other nations cannot be the basis of a valid BFOQ exception. EEOC Decision No. 72-0697, CCH EEOC Decisions 1971, 16317, at 4569. The EEOC has promulgated regulations stating that the only customer preference allowed as a BFOQ exception is one necessary for the purpose of genuineness or authenticity (e. g., a performer). 29 C.F.R. § 1604.2(a)(2) (1972).

Blake, supra, and Diaz, supra, held that customer preference based on sexual stereotype cannot justify discriminatory conduct. The court below relied on these cases, yet found that customer preference which prevents customers from dealing with the employer does qualify as a BFOQ. Nothing in those cases justifies this distinction.

Wynn attempts to distinguish Diaz by asserting that a separate rule applies in international contexts. Such a distinction is unfounded. Though the United States cannot impose standards of non-discriminatory conduct on other nations through its legal system, the district court’s rule would allow other nations to dictate discrimination in this country. No foreign nation can compel the non-enforcement of Title VII here.2

IV.

The judgment is AFFIRMED on the ground that sex was not a factor in Wynn’s refusal to promote Fernandez. The lower court’s analysis of the BFOQ issue is rejected.

OPINION

McKEOWN, Circuit Judge:

For years, Washington faced problems common to a number of states in their women’s prisons: sexual abuse and misconduct by prison guards, breaches of inmate privacy, and security gaps. A primary driver, according to prison authorities, was the lack of female corree-*982tional officers to oversee female offenders and administer sensitive tasks, such as observing inmates showering and dressing and performing the pat (or “pat-down”) and strip searches that are stitched into the fabric of day-to-day-prison life. After long wrestling with this gender gap, the state undertook a comprehensive assessment and ultimately designated a limited number of female-only correctional positions — specifically, 110 positions to patrol housing units, prison grounds, and work sites. The prison guards’ union, Teamsters Local No. 117 (“Teamsters” or the “Union”), challenged this practice, though it acknowledges the legitimacy of 50 of the female-only designations. This case juxtaposes the prison’s penological interests against male correctional officers who claim the staffing policy discriminates against them on the basis of sex in violation of Title YII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e.

We conclude that the Washington Department of Corrections’ (the “Department” or the “state”) individualized, well-researched decision to designate discrete sex-based correctional officer categories was justified because sex is a bona-fide occupational qualification (“BFOQ”) for those positions. The Union’s thin eviden-tiary submissions — coupled with expert claims that were largely unsubstantiated or missed the point — failed to raise a material factual issue. Indeed, the startling statement by one of the Union’s experts underscores the legitimacy of the state’s efforts to combat sexual abuse: “Sexual abuse is present in all areas of our society ... [FJemale inmates must be taught as part of the rehabilitation process to deal with all abusive staff: males and females ...” The Department was well-justified in concluding that rampant abuse should not be an accepted part of prison life and taking steps to protect the welfare of inmates under its care. We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Department.

Background

The Department runs two women’s prisons. The Washington Corrections Center for Women in Gig Harbor has a capacity of 738 inmates, although it is often overcrowded. That prison runs the gamut from minimum security facilities to housing for violent offenders and those with mental health issues. It also houses Washington’s death row for female prisoners. The second facility is Mission Creek Corrections Center for Women in Belfair, a smaller minimum-security prison that houses around 300 inmates.

For decades, men dominated the ranks of prison guards, though neither party has provided precise figures. Facing a shortage of femále guards in the late 1980s, state prison administrators began allowing male guards to perform random, clothed body searches — commonly known as pat searches — of the female inmates at Washington Corrections Center. Female inmates challenged these cross-gender searches as unconstitutional. The district court granted an injunction and halted the practice. Sitting en banc, we affirmed, concluding that cross-gender body searches inflict unnecessary and wanton pain on female inmates, many of whom have suffered a history of sexual abuse before incarceration, and, therefore, violate the Eighth Amendment.1 Jordan v. Gardner, 986 F.2d 1521, 1531 (9th Cir.1993) (en banc). Under both Jordan and a later-enacted Washington law, female correctional officers must perform all non-emer*983gency pat searches of female inmates. Wash. Rev.Code § 9.94A.631(2) (2012).

In the years following Jordan, the Department struggled with the challenges posed by having an overwhelmingly male workforce. In 1998, it asked the Washington Human Rights Commission (the “Commission”) for an opinion on proposed correctional assignments reserved exclusively for female officers. The Commission did not favor the Department’s approach at that time.2

In 2008, Congress passed the Prison Rape Elimination Act, which included findings that, based upon experts’ conservative estimates, 13% of prisoners had been sexually assaulted while in prison. See 42 U.S.C. § 15601. The legislation also noted that many instances of abuse go unreported and prison personnel were inadequately trained to deal with these issues. See id. §§ 15601-09. Under the Act, the Department received a $1 million grant to hire two full-time employees to investigate sexual misconduct allegations in prisons.

In the years that followed, the Department fielded widespread allegations of sexual abuse in its women’s prisons. State officials, for example, substantiated 46 instances of misconduct in a single two-and-a-half-year stretch. In the aftermath, in 2007, female inmates brought a class action in state court alleging misconduct at the Washington Corrections Center. The complaint detailed incidents where guards assaulted and fondled female inmates and forced them to perform oral sex and masturbate in the presence of male officers. Complaint, Jane Doe v. Clarke, No. 07-2-01513-0, Dkt. No. 4 (Thurston Co.Super.Ct. July 31, 2007).

Within a week of the filing of that lawsuit, the Department hired a consultant to investigate sexual activity and misconduct. After a four-month internal investigation, the consultant detailed the facts in a 240-plus-page report. The investigation included interviews with 72 “Jane Doe” inmates, who alleged that they faced sexual advances and harassment from prison guards. Among the lurid details, male guards twice impregnated inmates and smuggled contraband in exchange for sexual favors.

The Department also hired two additional consultants to review prison practices. Marianne McNabb, of the Social Research Institute based in Olympia, Washington, wrote:

Cross-sex supervision is currently one of the most significant issues facing the administration of women’s prisons. Today in many states, over 50 percent of the custody force in prisons for women are men. The fact that so many women in prison have experienced sexual abuse by men makes them different from male prisoners who do not share that history and therefore do not experience the same level of anxiety or.violation as do women, when under the custody or supervision of an officer of the opposite sex.

McNabb noted that several jurisdictions, including Idaho and Michigan, “have established sex-specific posts in female institutions” in response to these dynamics. Her report concluded, ‘While this may *984seem to be a solution for many of the concerns identified, this practice is generally not fully understood or accepted by staff and has faced some legal challenges.”

Donald Kelchner, superintendent of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, urged the Department to adopt a host of reforms, including guard assignments reserved specifically for women. In particular, Kelchner recommended that the state ensure any double-staffed housing units have at least one female guard. Kelchner concluded, “It is more desirable in an institution housing females to have a higher number of female staff, to work with and supervise the inmates.”

Following the expert recommendations, the Department in January 2008 implemented an array of reforms to “reduce prison sexual assaults and related behavior.” Those efforts included aggressive recruitment of female prison guards; pre-hiring psychological testing; training programs to enhance “gender awareness”; and the installation of privacy curtains, security cameras, and restricted access entry cards.

Then, in May 2008, prison administrators again requested guidance from the Commission on the Department’s proposed 110 female-only guard post assignments at the two prisons. The Department submitted a tailored request for each post, explaining the job responsibilities and why the positions needed a female officer. The state told the Commission that “[increasing the number of female staff will reduce the risk of sexual misconduct, reduce allegations of sexual misconduct, and protect male staff exposed to vulnerable situations” and unfounded complaints of abuse. The state also emphasized the privacy requirements of female inmates and the operational need to have female officers on hand to perform necessary searches and other tasks. The requested staffing changes, according to the state, would “ensure the security of the prisons, safety of incarcerated offenders, and protection of the privacy and dignity of female offenders.”

After touring the prisons, interviewing administrators, and collecting detailed documentation, the Commission in February 2009 approved the Department’s request for all 110 positions. The Commission offered Teamsters the chance to provide input but none was forthcoming. The Commission determined that, with the then-existing staff makeup at the prisons, the state was “unable to ensure a proper balance between security considerations and the privacy rights of offenders” and that there were no reasonable alternatives to sex-based staffing.

The class action settled soon after. As part of the settlement agreement, the Department agreed to enforce a “zero tolerance” policy regarding sexual misconduct, not to rehire five male correctional officers accused of abuse, and to submit regular reports on staff misconduct in women’s prisons. The settlement also included an undisclosed payout to abused prisoners. Stipulation and Proposed Order, Jane Doe v. Clarke, No. 07-2-01513-0, Dkt. No. 170 (Thurston Co.Super.Ct. Aug. 6, 2010).

The Department’s reprieve from the courtroom did not last long. In September 2011, Teamsters, which represents some 6,000 state correctional workers, filed this federal lawsuit, alleging that the sex-based staffing policy implemented in 2009 violates the civil rights of male prison guards.3

*985At the conclusion of discovery, the district court granted summary judgment for the state. Teamsters Local Union No. 117 v. Wash. Dep’t of Corr., No. C11-5760 BHS, 2013 WL 1412335 (W.D.Wash. Apr. 8, 2013). The district court first found that the Union had failed to demonstrate the type of “cognizable injury” required to trigger Title VII liability. The court noted that the record developed by Teamsters included only “hypothetical evidence” of the damages its members would face, thus entitling the state to summary judgment. Id. at *4. Alternatively, the district court also granted summary judgment for the state on the question of sex discrimination. As an initial matter, the district court ruled that judicial.deference to state pris- . on officials was warranted. Id. The court concluded that, although there may have been factual questions on whether female guards were needed inside the housing units to prevent sexual assaults, the staffing policy was justified as a BFOQ to protect the privacy of inmates for each job category. Id. at *5-9.

Analysis

I. Standing

This case is a cautionary tale about the threshold importance of standing. The state argues, for the first time on appeal, and after receiving Teamsters’ opening brief, that the Union lacks standing because it produced no evidence that any of its members suffered concrete injury. The issue is not, as Teamsters urges, whether the question was addressed by the district court; rather, as a jurisdictional matter, “a challenge to constitutional standing is one which we are required to consider” apart-from whether it was argued or addressed below. Laub v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 342 F.3d 1080, 1085 (9th Cir.2003) (internal quotation mark and citation omitted).

The standing inquiry is governed by the familiar elements of injury-in-fact, traceability, and redressability. “To establish Article III standing, an injury must be concrete, particularized, and' actual or imminent; fairly- traceable to the challenged action; and redressable by a favorable ruling.” Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA — U.S.-, 133 S.Ct. 1138, 1147, 185 L.Ed.2d 264 (2013) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). For associational standing, Teamsters must show in addition that “its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right.” Associated Gen. Contractors of Am., San Diego Chapter v. Cal. Dep’t of Transp., 713 F.3d 1187, 1194 (9th Cir.2013). In other words, the Union “must show that a member suffers an injury-in-fact that is traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.” Id.

The complaint posited varied theories of injury: male guards were forced to transfer jobs and prisons; suffered lost earnings, including overtime pay; were laid off; and experienced “loss of status, diminished sense of self-worth, anxiety, emotional distress, embarrassment, humiliation, mental anguish, and other related damages.” Surprisingly, proof of these general allegations did not materialize as evidence. The Union’s submissions on summary judgment are thin, at best, in terms of identifying one or more specific members who suffered injury. Ironically, it is the testimony the Union elicited from the state that provides the strongest support for the Teamsters’ constitutional standing. Throughout discovery, the state did not dispute the general allegations that its staffing policy resulted in the transfer of male guards and lost overtime opportunities. While no evidence linked a specific officer with a discrete wage loss, Superintendent Doug Cole indicated that six male officers had been displaced from their reg*986ular shifts — mentioning two by name — and agreed with the Union’s lawyer that, with respect to male correctional officers, the staffing changes would result in “some reduction in their overtime opportunity ...” Every male correctional officer who was displaced from his regular shift, however, was offered a position on a different shift.

As the state points out, when a challenge to standing is raised at summary judgment, a plaintiff organization must “submit competent evidence, not mere allegations, to demonstrate that at least one of its members had standing.” Associated General, 713 F.3d at 1194. This is a settled proposition, though curiously the state never moved for summary judgment on standing nor contested the Union’s standing allegations. Nonetheless, a party is not excused from establishing standing simply because the opposing party did not tumble to the issue until the appeals stage. See Gest v. Bradbury, 443 F.3d 1177, 1181 (9th Cir.2006) (“The[] elements of standing must be supported in the same way as any other matter for which a plaintiff bears the burden of proof, ie., with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation.”).

In response to the state’s motion to dismiss on appeal, Teamsters moved to supplement the record with affidavits from five Union members and an administrator. Why this evidence surfaced only on appeal is a mystery. Ordinarily, we do not allow parties to supplement the record on appeal absent “extraordinary circumstances.” United States v. Boulware, 558 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir.2009). Here, however, we accept the affidavits for the limited purpose of confirming the job-related harms that the Department acknowledged in general terms during discovery. Doing so is “in the interests of justice and efficiency,” Ouachita Watch League v. Jacobs, 463 F.3d 1163, 1170 (11th Cir.2006) (internal citation omitted), since the hiring policy has been on the books since 2009 and has been the subject of multiple proceedings; a remand or dismissal on procedural grounds would merely prolong resolution of the underlying issues. In the affidavits, male correctional officers assert that they have suffered precisely the types of harm that the state acknowledged in discovery— most importantly, lost overtime.

Although the Union hardly made a slam-dunk showing of prospective harm, the record as supplemented on appeal reflects the bare minimum necessary to satisfy the threshold requirement of standing. The Department’s motion to dismiss the appeal on standing grounds is denied.

II. Title VII and the Bona Fide Occupational Qualification

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment practices that discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2. Nevertheless, a facially discriminatory employment practice, such as the sex-based hiring practice we have here, may pass legal muster if sex is a bona fide occupational qualification or BFOQ. That narrow exception — found in § 2000e-2(e)(l) — provides:

[I]t shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to hire and employ employees ... on the basis of ... sex ... where ... sex ... is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise.

The Supreme Court has emphasized that “[t]he BFOQ defense is written narrowly, and this Court has read it narrowly.” UAW v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187, 201, 111 S.Ct. 1196, 113 L.Ed.2d 158 (1991). The BFOQ defense applies to “special situations” where employment discrimination is based upon “objective, verifiable requirements” that “con*987cern job-related skills and aptitudes.” Id. An “occupational qualification” means a “qualification[ ] that affect[s] an employee’s ability to do the job.” Id.

Under our precedent, the BFOQ defense “may be invoked only when the essence of the business operation would be undermined by hiring individuals of both sexes.” Breiner v. Nev. Dep’t of Corr., 610 F.3d 1202, 1210 (9th Cir.2010) (emphasis in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To justify discrimination under the BFOQ exception, an employer must show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that: (1) the “job qualification justifying the discrimination is reasonably necessary to the essence of its business”; and (2) that “sex is a legitimate proxy for determining” whether a correctional officer has the necessary job qualifications. Ambat v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 757 F.3d 1017, 1025 (9th Cir.2014) (quoting Breiner, 610 F.3d at 1210).

In light of these demanding legal standards, BFOQs are few and far between. In many industries, it is difficult to imagine any jobs that would qualify as BFOQs. However, the “unique context of prison employment,” id. at 1028, is one area where courts have found sex-based classifications justified. The Supreme Court directly addressed the prison environment in just one case, Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321, 97 S.Ct. 2720, 53 L.Ed.2d 786 (1977). The Court held that, in the context of a maximum-security facility “where violence is the order of the day” and sex offenders were interspersed with other prisoners, a female guard’s sex may “undermine her capacity to provide the security that is the essence of a correctional counselor’s responsibility.” Id. at 335-36, 97 S.Ct. 2720. Referencing Dothard, the Court in Johnson Controls explained that “[s]ex discrimination was tolerated because sex was related to the guard’s ability to do the job — maintaining prison security.” 499 U.S. at 202, 111 S.Ct. 1196.

When justified under the circumstances, we and other circuits similarly have upheld sex-based correctional officer assignments in women’s prisons. See Robino v. Iranon, 145 F.3d 1109, 1110 (9th Cir.1998) (per curiam) (BFOQ designation of six correctional officer positions at Hawaii women’s prison); Everson v. Mich. Dep’t of Corr., 391 F.3d 737, 749-50 (6th Cir.2004) (BFOQ designation of 250 correctional officer positions at Michigan women’s prisons); Tharp v. Iowa Dep’t of Corr., 68 F.3d 223, 224 (8th Cir.1995) (BFOQ designation of all correctional officer positions in women’s residential unit within a mixed-gender minimum security prison); cf. Torres v. Wisc. Dep’t of Health and Soc. Servs., 859 F.2d 1523, 1532 (7th Cir.1988) (en banc) (noting that prison officials are not required to provide “objective evidence, either from empirical studies or otherwise,” and remanding the denial of a BFOQ designation for evaluation “on the basis of the totality of the circumstances contained in the entire record.”).

Although limited gender discrimination may be permissible in the prison employment context, prison administrators do not get a free pass. The Department must have an objective “basis in fact” for “its belief that gender discrimination is ‘reasonably necessary’ — not merely reasonable or convenient — to the normal operation of its business.” Everson, 391 F.3d at 748 (citing W. Air Lines, Inc. v. Criswell, 472 U.S. 400, 414, 105 S.Ct. 2743, 86 L.Ed.2d 321 (1985)). This means prison administrators “seeking to justify a BFOQ must show a high correlation between sex and ability to perform job functions.” Breiner, 610 F.3d at 1213 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Speculation about gender roles is insufficient — the evidence must demonstrate that prison ad*988ministrators had a “concrete, logical basis for concluding that gender restrictions are reasonably necessary” and that alternatives to sex discrimination have been “reasonably considered and refuted.” Ambat, 757 F.3d at 1028 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

An additional significant factor is at play: deference to prison officials. “Judgments by prison administrators that are the product of a reasoned decision-making process, based on available information and expertise, are entitled to some deference.” Breiner, 610 F.3d at 1212 n. 6 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Robino, 145 F.3d at 1110 (holding that, where Hawaii prison administrators appointed a task force to review prison policies, their “professional judgment is entitled to deference”).

Although we have not offered up a cookbook for a “reasoned decision-making process,” cases that have invoked the deference principle point to undertakings that address systemic issues, consider outside views and data, and weigh reasonable alternatives. See Robino, 145 F.3d at 1111 (deferring to Hawaii prison administrators who directed a “specially appointed task force” to study prison problems); Everson, 391 F.3d at 741-45 (deferring to Michigan prison administrators where they conducted three studies, one pursuant to a settlement with the Department of Justice). To be sure, although studies and empirical data are indicia of a deliberative approach, we have emphasized that “the decision-making process supporting a discriminatory policy” need not “take any particular form.” Ambat, 757 F.3d at 1026. Deference is a threshold legal determination.

The Department’s exhaustive process fits well within the rubric of “reasoned decision making” and is entitled to deference. After the Jane Doe prisoner class action was filed in 2007, the Department did not rush headlong into sex-based staffing. Instead, it hired experts, consulted with other states, reviewed relevant case-law, documented scores of sexual misconduct allegations and investigated many more, and sought advice from the Human Rights Commission. Drawing on its decades of experience, the state did not view sex-based staffing as a panacea, instead proposing a package of reforms that included measures such as applicant psychological testing, sex-awareness training, and security cameras.

Teamsters argues that the Department implemented sex-based staffing “during a time of Departmental crisis” and in a “panic” that was little more than a “desperate attempt” to settle the state court class action. The Union’s characterization begs the question: If sordid details of sexual abuse and constitutional violations do not inspire a “crisis” and feelings of “panic,” then what does? The state shouldn’t be demonized for kicking into gear to find a remedy for its long-running challenges. In any event, our inquiry does not turn on the subjective state of mind of the Department’s leadership. The Department undertook a rigorous review of its staffing policies to address the issues raised in the report and the class action.

The Department’s thorough, thoughtful approach stands in stark contrast to the sheriff in Ambat, who rejected out of hand alternatives to discrimination — such as pre-hiring screening, surveillance cameras, and training — and declined to order an internal investigation or hire outside consultants. See 757 F.3d at 1022, 1026. The sheriff did not consult deputies directly responsible for prisoner supervision or other jurisdictions with similar policies, and no internal review documented the extent of misconduct. Id.

Ambat instructs that “[djetermining whether a corrections official is entitled to deference is a fact-intensive and case-spe*989cific inquiry” that is “generally within the discretion of the. district court.” Id. at 1026. The district court found that the Department’s process merited deference, and we see no reason to conclude otherwise. Accordingly, we give “some deference,” Rabino, 145 F.3d at 1110, to Washington’s prison administrators, although we remain mindful of the antidiscrimi-nation mandate of Title VII.

III. The Prison Policy and BFOQ Requirements

In 2009 the Department determined that designating 110 female-only guard positions at the two prisons would substantially improve prison security, protect the privacy of female inmates, and prevent sexual assaults. Teamsters challenges approximately sixty of those positions, which fall into four general categories: medium- and high-security housing units (18 positions); programs and activities supervisors (3 positions); work crew supervisors (6 positions); and relief posts to replace female guards who are on breaks or absent from work (32 positions).4

The Union paints the Department staffing policy as “broad and overreaching” — a “blunderbuss approach to the issue.” The record demonstrates the opposite. Instead of a blanket ban on male prison personnel, the Department crafted the staffing needs to fit each specific facility and guard post. It targeted only guard assignments that require direct, day-today interaction with inmates and entail sensitive job responsibilities such as conducting pat and strip searches and observing inmates while they shower and use the restroom.

As the Union’s expert acknowledged, “[n]o remedy is perfect nor perfectly effective.” We couldn’t agree more. This reality underscores the rationale for deference to prison administrators and the hazard of nitpicking the state’s thoughtful response to deep-rooted problems in its women’s prisons.

A. The Department’s Policy Rationales Are Reasonably Necessary to the Essence of Prison Administration

At issue on appeal is whether the state established as a matter of law that sex-based restrictions are “a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary” to normal prison operations. Under the well-worn standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment because there is “no genuine dispute' as to any material fact and the [state] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(a). Teamsters failed to produce “specific facts showing there is a genuine issue for trial” to survive summary judgment. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)).

Curiously, Teamsters did not offer specific testimony from its members, former guards, or others with actual knowledge of on-the-block operations at the prisons. Although Teamsters offered up the reports of two experts, in the end their testimony does not create a material factual issue. For starters, the reports generally fail to address the specific posts at issue. Instead, they rehash alternatives to sex-based staffing that were exhausted and rejected by prison administrators or serve up proposals without any evidence of efficacy or practicality. Finally, the Union’s experts opine on the interpretation of so*990cial science research that is not central to the state policy in any event.

Although the sexual assaults that spawned the Jane Doe class action permeate this lawsuit, the state did not justify its BFOQ positions solely as a means to prevent sexual assaults. Instead, it identified several intertwined reasons for designating the female-only positions. In the initial request to the Human Rights Commission, the Department cited the need to “enhance the security of the prisons, safety of staff and offenders, and to protect the privacy and dignity of female offenders.” The Commission, in turn, concluded that absent the BFOQ designations, the prison is “unable to ensure a proper balance between security considerations and privacy rights of offenders” and endorsed the female job assignments “for the explicit purpose of ensuring privacy rights of female offenders.”

Not surprisingly, under our precedent all of these interrelated objectives go to the heart of prison operations. In Ambat, we held that, as a matter of law, “protecting female inmates from sexual misconduct by male deputies, maintaining jail security, [and] protecting inmate privacy” were all reasonably necessary to the essence of prison administration. 757 F.3d at 1027-28. The same holds true here.

Security, of course, is the paramount concern of prison administrators. As the Supreme Court has noted: “The essence of a correctional counselor’s job is to maintain prison security.” Dothard, 433 U.S. at 335, 97 S.Ct. 2720; see also Everson, 391 F.3d at 753 (“Unquestionably, the security of the prisons relates to the essence of [prison business].”). That maxim is no less true today. Security concerns are necessarily intertwined with prison programs and objectives.

Inmate privacy encompasses the inmate’s “interest in not being viewed unclothed by members of the opposite sex”— , an interest that “survives incarceration” despite prisoners’ diminished privacy expectations. See Robino, 145 F.3d at 1111. In the same vein, inmates have a privacy interest in having non-emergency strip and pat searches — a pervasive fact of prison life — performed by guards of the same sex. See Jordan, 986 F.2d at 1524; Tharp, 68 F.3d at 226.

Preventing sexual assaults is also a legitimate prison objective. First and foremost, prison administrators have a high interest in shielding inmates from abusive and inherently coercive encounters. Indeed, even allegations of sexual misconduct can destabilize prison life: they can breed mistrust and damage morale among officers and prisoners; drain prison resources; and undercut the effectiveness of male officers with the looming threat of a career-ending accusation. See Robino, 145 F.3d at 1111 (discussing damage to prison morale caused by allegations of male staff sexual misconduct); Everson, 391 F.3d at 753 (“[Allegations of sexual abuse, whether true or not, create a ‘poisoned atmosphere’ that breeds misconduct on the part of inmates and guards.”).

Amazingly, one of the Union’s experts offered the following view:

Female inmates cannot be shielded from the world in which we live. If they are to reintegrate into society, they have to be taught how to deal with abusive staff, male or female. They have to be taught what constitutes a healthy interaction and what does not. They cannot learn those skills if they are sheltered from contact with males in a position of authority. ¶ Sexual abuse is present in all areas of our society: in schools, (at all levels), business, government, military and families. Just as females have to be taught how to deal with those abuses in the larger society, female inmates must be taught .as part of the rehabilitation *991process how to deal with all abusive staff: males and females, custody staff and civilian staff.

To state something so obvious we never imagined it would need to be written: we reject any suggestion that female prisoners would benefit from being subjected to abusive prison guards as “part of the rehabilitation process” so that they may better “reintegrate into society.” See, e.g., Prison Rape Elimination Act, 42 U.S.C. § 15601(11) (“Victims of prison rape suffer severe physical and psychological effects that hinder their ability to integrate into the community and maintain stable employment upon their release from prison.”).

We have little difficulty holding that the state’s reasons for adopting the BFOQ designations — improving security, protecting inmate privacy, and preventing sexual assaults — are each reasonably necessary to the essence of operating Washington’s women’s prisons. That conclusion does not end the analysis, however. The state also must demonstrate that sex is a “legitimate proxy” to achieve one or more of these goals, meaning that there is a “high correlation between sex and ability to perform job functions.” Breiner, 610 F.3d at 1213 (quoting Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. at 202, 111 S.Ct. 1196). In addition, the state must show that alternatives to the sex-based classification were “reasonably considered and refuted.” Ambat, 757 F.3d. at 1028.

Before addressing these remaining requirements in the context of specific positions, we consider Teamsters’ overarching arguments that the staffing policy is based on stereotypes and that the state failed to consider nondiscriminatory alternatives.

Teamsters argues at length that the state policy is based on an impermissible stereotype that male guards are more likely to commit sexual misconduct than their female counterparts. This stereotyping argument misses the mark. To begin, the Union acknowledged that the policy was adopted in the face of documented allegations of abuse.5 The Department also did not rest on assumptions; it provided objective legal and operational justifications for why only women can perform particular job functions, like observing inmates unclothed and conducting non-emergency searches.

We also reject Teamsters’ argument that the Department could simply have hired new executives or reconfigured prison layouts. As our discussion of the day-to-day realities of the positions at issue demonstrates, neither of those alternatives actually addresses the specific operational challenges of maintaining prison security, preserving inmates’ privacy, and stopping abuse.

B. Sex is an Objective, Verifiable Job Qualification for the Designated Positions

We conclude that sex is an objective, verifiable job qualification for the posts designated as female-only by the Department and that the Department appropriately considered reasonable alternatives.

*9921. Housing Units

The staffing restriction with the “largest impact,” according to the Union, involves 18 positions at the medium- and high-security housing units at Washington Corrections Center.6 The housing units have two guards on duty on each shift. Unlike other states, the Department did not ban male guards entirely; rather, the staffing policy requires at least one female guard per shift, an approach recommended by one of the state’s consultants.

In the housing units, correctional officers “must conduct pat and strip searches of female offenders entering and leaving the facility” as well as frequent random and suspicion-based searches within the housing units. In the segregation and mental illness units, inmates are strip searched every time they enter or leave their cells. Except in emergency circumstances, male guards cannot legally perform any of these searches. Jordan, 986 F.2d at 1523; see also Wash. Rev.Code § 9.94A.63K2).

Beyond searches, officers in the housing units also “may encounter female offenders in varying states of undress while showering, toileting, and dressing.” Guards must collect urine samples from inmates, and a failure, to “observ[e] the offenders during the entire process of urinalysis collection significantly impacts the reliability of the test results ...” According to the state, “[m]ale staff cannot observe female offenders when they are engaged in these activities.”

Given these operational needs, there is no reasonable substitute for having female guards inside housings units, according to the Department. Notably, temporarily removing a female guard from another part of the prison to cover in a housing unit “creates a gap for dealing with privacy issues at the post vacated.” At best, that solution fixes one problem but creates another.

The evidence Teamsters puts forward to counter the Department’s justifications is entirely inapposite. One of its experts points out that sexual assault is not a severe problem in medium- and high-security housing because “as the level of security increases, the opportunity for sexual assault decreases.” This may be true, but it fails to acknowledge that the staffing decisions were designed to protect inmate privacy, which is “essential to the operation of a corrections facility and has been recognized as justifying facially discriminatory policies in other contexts.” Ambat, 757 F.3d at 1028. The Union’s other expert quarrels with citations to social science regarding female inmates’ privacy needs and matters relating to sexual relationships between inmates and guards. This testimony again fails to raise any genuine dispute of material fact as to the Department’s reasoned determination that the realities of operating Washington’s women’s prisons necessitate designating these specific positions as female-only.

2. Programs and Activities

Programs and activities officers directly supervise inmate activities such as educational and religious classes, gym, crafts, and visitation hours. During these programs and activities, inmates are searched at random and if suspected of hiding contraband. Guards must collect urine samples from inmates and at times relieve housing unit officers, which requires “room checks” where they may “encounter female offenders in varying states of undress .... ” These guards also supervise *993visitation hours, after which 50% of inmates are pat searched and 50% are strip searched. To fulfill these job functions, the state designated three programs and activities positions as female-only.

The Union’s proposed alternative to designating these positions as female-only is a return to the system employed for the last two decades: dispatching female officers as rovers — or “response and movement” guards, in prison lingo — who could be paged when needed for searches.7 The Union offers no data, expert testimony, or other evidence to support the efficacy of this approach. Instead, undisputed evidence established that the rover system was rife with problems, to say the least. During this era, prison administrators “shuttle[d] women staff from location to location throughout the prisons to perform essential security procedures, leaving other areas of the prison without appropriate staffing.” Wait times for searches lasted an hour or more. With female guards stretched thin, inmates went unsupervised showering, using the restroom, or dressing — raising security and safety risks. Superintendent Eldon Vail testified that, before the BFOQ positions were implemented, the prison functioned “in the broadest sense” but the shortage of female guards restricted the prison’s ability to deploy unannounced, random pat searches, an important tool in preventing the flow of contraband.

In light of this checkered history, the Union’s conclusory assertion that the Department successfully “managed [privacy and search] issues for at least two decades” rings hollow. FTC v. Publ’g Clearing House, Inc., 104 F.3d 1168, 1171 (9th Cir.1997) (“[CJonclusory, self-serving statements in appellate briefs ... are insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact.”). We will not displace prison administrators’ experience and expertise in favor of an alternative that boils down to the “same old, same old.” Cf. Torres, 859 F.2d at 1529 (“[PJrison administrators always have been expected to innovate and experiment.”) (citing Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 107, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987) (prison administrators must be allowed “to adopt innovative solutions to the intractable problems of prison administration”)).

3. Work Crews

Work crew officers escort groups of ten prisoners to off-site work locations and supervise their workdays. Searches are again part and parcel of the job — comprising 70% of day-to-day responsibilities. Strip searches are required each time an inmate leaves and reenters the prison grounds. Before the 2009 staffing policy, female officers had to be “pulled from somewhere else in the facility” to conduct these searches, which can “creat[e] [] a staff shortage in another area of the facility” and pose “a potential security risk,” according to the Human Rights Commission. During the workday, officers also must accompany female inmates as they use the restroom. The Department concluded that, because of these job responsibilities, it needed female officers alongside work crews. The Department therefore designated six positions as female-only.

Nonetheless, with respect to work crews, the Union argues that the Department should merely station female guards at prison entry and exit points. If the need for a search arises “while work is in progress, this would constitute an ‘emergent’ search which is not prohibited for a male officer as a matter of law, policy or *994contract.” The Union produced no evidence or legal support for its emergency-search proposal. Even if the Department could disingenuously label every work-site search as an emergency, the state’s interest is broader than merely avoiding illegal searches. Having male officers conduct pat searches under any non-emergency circumstances is undesirable and harmful to prisoner privacy and security.

Staging female officers at entry and exit points also ignores the state’s interest in preserving security during work assignments. The record showed that at least two inmates escaped from public bathrooms while on work crews, when they were not watched by male guards and no female guards were on hand. The Union does not explain, much less provide evidence for, how its alternative proposal would address concerns about on-the-job observation.

4. Relief Posts

Officers in the 32 relief positions substitute for female guards in female-only positions when they have a regular day off, are on vacation, or are out sick. The relief officers perform the job responsibilities described above in housing units and elsewhere. As the Human Rights Commission put it, the relief positions “alleviate under-staffing of female officers, because a BFOQ position needs to be relieved by a BFOQ position.” In other words, if only male officers are available to fill in for BFOQ positions, it undermines the documented need of making those positions female-only in the first place.

According to the Union, 32 relief positions is too many, so the issue “must be reserved for trial because the Court cannot assess whether the relief sought was excessive without conducting a careful analysis of all such positions. To survive summary judgment, however, the Union “may not merely state that it will discredit the moving party’s evidence at trial and proceed in the hope that something can be developed at trial in the way of evidence to support its claim.” T.W. Elec. Serv. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir.1987). Argument without evidence is hollow rhetoric that cannot defeat summary judgment.

Conclusion

We affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the state. The Washington Department’s creation of a narrow category of female-only job assignments is a “bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation” of the women’s prisons.8

AFFIRMED.