WOMEN WHO COULDN’T MAKE THE GRADE BAILED OUT BY EEOC

Settlement unfairly penalizes Massachusetts correctional officers, both male and female, who passed physical agility tests, as well as potential male recruits, while rewarding failing females with cash payments and retroactive seniority

In 2007 the Massachusetts Department of Correction began to subject all correctional officer recruits to the Caritas Physical Abilities Test which consisted of obstacles, including a 6 ft. wall climb. According to the Courthouse News Service (CNS), in 2007, 97.2 percent of men passed, while only 55.1 percent of women passed. In 2008, 96 percent of men passed, while 65.2 percent of women passed. In 2009, 99 percent of men passed and 84.2 percent of women passed.

In 2009, the EEOC sued the state and it’s department of corrections, alleging that the test had an unintentional disparate impact on women in violation of employment-discrimination protections in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. CNS reports that a settlement was eventually reached in which the state would pay $736,000 to the female applicants who previously failed the test. Five women who initially failed the test but passed later on will receive retroactive seniority, while 30 candidates who failed will receive priority hiring with retroactive seniority.

This is pure horseshit! The lawsuit was based on the fact that more men passed the physical agility test than females and completely ignored the fact that correctional officers must perform strenuous physical tasks, including frequent struggles with strong unruly prison inmates.

If the physical agility tests, including a wall climb, were work-related, they were not discriminatory. The feminist movement has long demanded equal rights for women, but what they really want is that more rights be given to women over men.

Just look at what the Navy did years ago to open its ranks to more women. During basic training, all navy recruits were paired off to carry a 150 pound dummy on a stretcher for a specified distance in a specified time. Hardly any of the women recruits were able to complete the test successfully, even when paired off with a male litter bearer. So what did the Navy do? It changed the test to where four litter bearers carried the dummy, and they even reduced the distance to accommodate the female recruits. They had a good reason to require the original test – getting an injured sailor far enough away from spreading flames in time to prevent further injury.

Any time that standards are lowered to accommodate a protected group – like women – the standards are lowered for everyone!

Here is Paco’s take on the EEOC lawsuit and the resulting settlement:

‘RETROACTIVE SENIORITY’ TO FEMALES WHO FAILED DOC’S ‘DISCRIMINATORY’ PHYSICAL TEST
By Jeff ‘Paco’ Doyle

PACOVILLA Corrections blog
June 29, 2012

In Paco’s estimation, the 84.2% of female applicants passing the test in 2009 proves the test is not discriminatory at all. Rather, as the numbers attest, the wall climb and other “discriminatory” tests are a reasonable standard that a majority of the females rose to. Yet, because men passed with higher numbers, it must be some kind of bias.

Never mind the fact that CO’s must perform physically challenging tasks on a day to day basis. Whether or not employees are able to meet a minimum standard is irrelevant compared to the desirability of having a balanced workforce.

So, what’s next? Will future physical fitness tests be patterned after golf courses, where females have a separate tee, closer to the green? Shall females scale a shorter wall, drag a smaller and lighter dummy or run a kilometer for each mile male applicants complete?

Women make great CPO’s and the majority of those who want to work in corrections are more than capable of doing so. Those who cannot scale a wall or drag a 185 pound dummy have no more “right” to be CO’s than males who fail the test.

Or, to put it in sexist terms, women who want to do what was once considered a “man’s job” ought to be subjected to the same standards. After all, the tests in question are reasonable, time tested standards. If females were expected to stand and urinate a prescribed distance, THAT would be sex discrimination–Scaling a wall is not.