Analogy (3) – County Troopers – As with police departments, applying minimum size requirements to applicants for state trooper jobs violates Title VII, unless the respondent can establish that the requirements are necessary for the safe and efficient operation of its business. (See U.S. vmonwealth away from Virginia, 454 F. Supp. 1077, 18 EPD ¶ 8779 (E.D. Va. 1978) which was decided under the 1973 Crime Control Act with reliance on the principles of Griggs v. Duke Fuel Co., 401 U.)
(c) Physical Element or Agility Evaluating –
In other instances, instead of relying upon minimum proportional height/weight standards as a measure of strength, the respondents have abolished height and weight standards and have installed in their place physical ability tests. Harless v. Duck, 619 F.2d 611, 22 EPD ¶ 30,871 (6th Cir. 1980); Blake v. Town of La, 595 F.2d 1367, 19 EPD ¶ 9251 (9th Cir. 1979). If the charging party can establish a prima facie case of discrimination by showing that the particular physical ability tests disproportionately excluded a protected group or class from employment, the burden shifts to the respondent to show that the requirements are a business necessity and bear a manifest relationship to the employment in question. Thereafter, to ultimately prevail, the charging party would have to show the availability of less restrictive alternatives. (For a further discussion of this and related problems, the EOS should consult the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures at 29 C.F.R. § 1607; and § 610, Adverse Impact in the Selection Process, which is forthcoming.)
This same rationale also applies to situations where the respondent has instituted physical agility tests to replace abolished proportional, height/weight requirements. Officials to have Fairness v. Municipal Service Commission, 335 F. Supp. 378, 11 EPD ¶ 10,618 (N.D. Cal. 1975). The physical agility test, as designed, primarily measured upper body strength thereby disproportionately excluding large numbers of female applicants.
Example (1) – R, a police department, formerly screened job applicants by strict adherence to proportional minimum height/weight requirements under the assumption that tall, well-built officers were physically stronger and therefore better able to perform all the duties of the job. Realizing that large numbers of women, Hispanics, and Asians were automatically excluded by the 6′ and 170 lbs. standard, R replaced the height/weight requirement with a physical ability/agility test. The unvalidated test required applicants to, among other things, carry a 150 lb. sandbag Bicurious tanД±Еџma siteleri up a flight of stairs and scale a 14-foot log wall. Out of the next class of 150 applicants, 120 men and 30 women, only two women passed the wall requirement, and none passed the sandbag requirement. In contrast, 5 of the men failed both requirements. CP, a female who passed the wall, but not the sandbag requirement, filed a charge alleging sex discrimination because the physical ability/agility test disproportionately excludes large numbers of women and is not justified by business necessity.
Analogy (2) – R, a fire department, replaced its minimum height/weight standards with a physical ability/agility test. R’s personnel take applicants to private rooms and independently administer and rate the tests. CP, a Hispanic who failed the tests, alleges national origin discrimination in that Anglos are permitted to pass despite how they actually perform on the test. Investigation revealed nonuniform application of the tests. In some cases, Anglos testified that they were not aware of the existence of the physical ability/agility tests.
621.7 Appeal out of Investigation –
The following are simply recommended areas of query to the EOS to help in their/her research and you may analysis away from charge alleging discriminatory accessibility top and you will weight standards. For an even more thorough dialogue from investigative processes, brand new EOS would be to consult § 602, How to Look at the.