General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFederal judge says FBI fitness test discriminates against men by making it easier for women
In a written opinion, a federal judge in Virginia found that a test that required Jay A. Bauer, 40, to complete 30 pushups while requiring women to do only a minimum of 14 violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
--
The case now moves to the remedy stage, said Michelle Reese Andrew of Andrew Law Group in Wilmette, who represents Bauer. Bauer will seek reinstatement as an FBI special agent, lost wages and other compensatory damages.
This case at its core is about the simple premise same job, same standard, Andrew said. If youre going for the same job, you should be held to the same standard whether youre male or female.
Andrews co-counsel in the case is Paul K. Vickrey, a partner at Niro, Haller & Niro Ltd.
The opinion should result in greater scrutiny of double standard employment tests based on gender, Vickrey said.
http://www.chicagolawbulletin.com/Articles/2014/06/12/FBI-Gender-Discrimination-6-12.aspx
Bauer passed a fitness test before entering new-agent training at Quantico, Va., where he scored at or near the top of his class in everything from firearms training to academics, according to his lawsuit. He was also selected by his fellow trainees to be their class leader, the lawsuit said.
Trainees must pass another fitness exam at the FBI Academy. Men must complete at least 38 situps in a minute and do 30 untimed pushups. Male candidates also must sprint 300 meters in 52.4 seconds and run 1.5 miles in 12 minutes and 24 seconds.
Bauer allegedly fulfilled all the other requirements, but after managing to do only 29 pushups, he was forced to resign from special agent training, the lawsuit said. He took an FBI analyst's job in Chicago, where he'd already relocated his wife and two young children. He lives in Mount Prospect.
For the past two years, Bauer has challenged the FBI decision through the administrative courts.
His attorneys argued that a female trainee who scored near the bottom of the class in firearms proficiency was given another attempt at the fitness test, but Bauer wasn't.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-04-10/news/ct-met-fbi-lawsuit-20120410_1_special-agent-fitness-test-fbi-academy
Here is my opinion.. I understand there are physiological differences between men and women. But I think these tests need to be designed in such a way to demonstrate the minimum fitness level necessary for the occupation and that it should be applied for all regardless of gender. If a woman can be a Special Agent for the FBI and only be able to do 15 push-ups, why must a man have to do 30 in order to perform the same duties, functions, and pay? It makes no sense. And I think that's the point the judge is making in this case.
Push-ups and situps and pull-ups or whatever are kind of stupid anyway. I think a better test is to do running, crawling, climbing, obstacle courses, pulling heavy dummies a certain distance, etc... These type of things mirror more what would be experienced in the field for a career in law enforcement. Doing a set number of push-ups doesn't prove someone is physically fit and able to perform essential functions of this type of employment. But that's just my opinion...women have sued for failing those kind of tests too.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)while trying to decide if I might sign up. The requirements drop with age, as well as gender. An older male is given more time to run the two miles than a younger one.
So should all of the requirements be set to the minimums for the oldest possible female enlistee? Or is it possible that by calibrating them more to the individual gender and age, you're testing more than just physical stamina, but also the determination to reach a certain percentage of your supposed potential?
Similarly, in some countries, they actually calibrate speeding tickets to your income, so that your fine is a set percentage rather than a fixed amount. Whether you're a CEO or a burger flipper, you pay something like 1% of your income for the year. They brought up an example on tv of some exec who wound up with a $130,000 fine for speeding. The underlying point was that a $100 fine to a poor person can be devastating, but to a rich one it's absolutely nothing.
So maybe the minimum physical requirements for your 18 year old male enrollee are such that if instead he just had to what the 47 year old female had to do, any old slacker could pass the exam, rather than someone putting forth a lot of effort and determination.
mike_c
(36,213 posts)I see your point for someone who might be able to perform better, but why bother if the standards don't demand it, but I also agree with the OP's premise about minimum standards applying to the job, rather than the person being tested. If a female who can do 15 push ups but not 30 can do the job, why would a male who could also do 15 push ups, but not 30, not be equally qualified? Granted that under those circumstances a male who could do 50 push ups but only cranked out the minimum 15 would be under performing, but does that really matter for minimum quals?
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)what is being measured might not be your level of actual fitness, per se, but the amount of effort you're willing to put in to getting to the relevant standard. And I do realize that simply starting out with different fitness levels does throw that up in the air, but presumably you had to put in some effort to get that fit even before you decided to join up.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)My dad recently retired from the police department, and even in his 60's he had to pass a physical test. It was easier than the test a 20 year old would take, but my dad was behind a desk all day, and certainly not chasing down any criminals.
My dad could go his job just fine, even thought he was less fit than a 20 year old, because what he was expected to do was different than a 20 year old.
If you compare a 20 year old male cop to a 20 year old female cop they both have the exact same job, and should have the same fitness requirement. I don't see why a a 7 minute mile is acceptable for a female, but not a male.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)I understand what you are saying about how something would be difficult to one person but not another. But the level of difficulty of criminals on the street don't change. (Considering the type of weapons out there these days, they may be getting even more dangerous.)
A criminal isn't going to take it easy just because the cop is a female or an older man.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)A criminal may not pick a fight with a male cop, but that same criminal might pick a fight with a female cop.
I know some woman that take boxing classes and would kick the crap out of 95% of men, and I know some men who are a big wuss and couldn't fight at all, but due to perceptions, a criminal might be more likely to pick that fight with a woman cop.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)These physical requirements are laughable.
dsc
(52,129 posts)Is it testing skills needed for the job or is it trying to test a certain level of fitness. If it is the first, then the test should be the same for both genders. If it is the second, then it should be set at the same z score for both genders which would result in a male doing more pushups than the female.