employees through Company financing of two-thirds the cost of tuition for high school training. But Congress directed the thrust of the Act to the consequences of employment practices, not simply the motivation. More than that, Congress has placed on the employer the burden of showing that any -given requirement must have a manifest relationship to the employment in question. “Nothing in the Act precludes the use of testing or measuring procedures; obviously they are useful. What Congress has forbidden is giving these devices and mechanisms controlling force unless they are demonstrably a reasonable measure of job performance”. 401 U.S. at 431, 432, 436, 91 S.Ct. at 853, 854, 856. (Emphasis supplied) See also Olzman v. Lake Hills Swim Club, 495 F.2d 1333, 1340-1341 (2d.Cir. 1974) (<HOLDING>); cf. Chance v. Board of Examiners, 458 F.2d
holding that surgeon with surgical privileges was not an employee of hospital and thus could not bring suit under either the age discrimination in employment act or title vii of the civil rights act of 1964 holding that physician with staff privileges is not an employee and thus cannot bring claim under title vii of 1964 civil rights act holding that a facially neutral rule with respect to club guest privileges prima facie violates the civil rights act of 1964  201a and e 42 usc  2000aa e where its effect is to weed out black guests and that the club must bear the burden of showing that the rule has a reasonable nonracial purpose holding that in a case where a private figure brings a defamation claim based on a matter of public concern the common laws rule on falsitythat the defendant must bear the burden of proving truth must  fall  to a constitutional requirement that the plaintiff bear the burden of showing falsity emphasis added holding that defendants bear the burden of showing that the challenged act was objectively reasonable citation omitted