Lanning v. SEPTA
Groups Decision:
This is a disparate impact case of discrimination because the initial physical fitness tests for the job (i.e. running 1.5miles in 12minutes) did not mean to discriminate any specific group of peoples; however, it apparently did. Surveys showed that only 12% of women passed and a larger 56% of men passed. Under the civil right act title VII arguably women here are being discriminated against. SEPTA’s defense was that they performed the test as a business necessity.
SEPTA provided studies of how physical fitness is required; however, these studies were flawed showing very little relatedness to the job. People who did not pass the test and were hired even won awards for their performance.
This case is very controversial because the civil rights act prohibits many activities performed by SEPTA:
Civil Rights Act of 1991, a discriminatory cutoff score on an entry level employment examination must be shown to measure the minimum qualifications necessary for successful performance of the job in question in order to survive a disparate impact challenge [emphasis added].
SEPTA goes against the civil rights act without proving that the cutoff test showed minimum qualification, and there were people awarded for superior performance who did not pass this physical fitness test. We believe the district court should reverse their decision and reconsider.
SEPTA makes an argument were in the case of a perpetrator one with physical ability could better catch this person; however, this lies way outside the normal scope of the job. We believe SEPTA’s arguments did not prove a business necessity.
Courts Decision:
Even though validation studies for testing employee fitness were flawed, the district courts upheld SEPTA’s claims that physical fitness was a requirement and related to the job at hand.
I believe that it is necessary to be physically fit as a transit officer (or any type of police authority) because of certain situations that may be encountered by the individual. However, the fitness testing should be much more closely related to potential job duties than the timed 1.5 mile run. In my opinion, this is a valid disparate impact case that should have favored Lanning and changed the fitness requirements of SEPTA.
ReplyDeleteI was actually surprised to hear that the district courts upheld SEPTA's claims. I agree that there must be minimum, quantifiable standards for transit officers, as commuters should reasonably expect transit officers to be fit and able to accomplish the job. SEPTA has every right to require women candidates to be physical fit, but in my opinion should require different standards for genders. As a former US Navy sailor, I can attest to the Navy's policy of requiring all sailors to pass a Physical Fitness Assessment, which included a timed 1.5 mile run. There are not only different standards for age groups, but for gender as well. I think women are fully capable of performing these duties, and should be required to meet standards that more closely represent their physical abilities.
ReplyDelete