Pennsylvania and State Police Seek to Settle Sex Discrimination Lawsuit
By: Aaron W. Chaet
On April 13, 2021, the United States and the State of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania State Police filed a joint motion to settle a 2014 sex discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”). The lawsuit alleged that Pennsylvania and the state police violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (“Title VII”) by refusing to consider female state trooper applicants who failed a physical readiness test.FN1
During the course of litigation, the DOJ established that the police’s reliance on the results of the physical readiness test, which consisted of a 300-meter run, sit-ups, push-ups, a vertical jump, and a 1.5 mile run, discriminated against women, because only 55% of women passed the test in comparison to 88% of men. In its summary judgment ruling, the district court held that the DOJ established the polices had a disparate impact on female applicants because the disparity between the overall pass rate for female applicants and the overall pass rate for male applicants was too statistically significant.FN2
The terms of the provisional settlement, which awaits the district court’s approval, include establishing a new selection procedure for entry-level Pennsylvania state trooper positions, and providing individual relief in the form of monetary, priority, and delay hiring (with retroactive noncompetitive seniority) to qualified female applicants who were not hired or who were delayed in their hire due to their physical readiness test results.
Takeaway
This settlement highlights employers’ liabilities for their practices that have a disparate impact on protected groups of employees and applicants. Please contact the attorneys at Campbell Litigation if you have any questions regarding employment policies and procedures that may have a disparate impact on employees and applicants.
FN1 – United States of America v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, et al., 1:14-cv-01474 (M.D. Penn.)
FN2 - In Title VII disparate impact cases, to show causation a plaintiff must provide “statistical evidence of a kind and degree sufficient to show that the practice in question has caused exclusion of applicants for jobs or promotions because of their membership in a protected group.” Watson v. Ft. Worth Bank &Trust, 487 U.S. 977, 994 (1988). Statistical significance with a probability level greater than 2 to 3 standard deviation, will typically be sufficient to meet a plaintiff’s burden. Stagi v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 391 F. App’x 133, 140 (3d Cir. 2010) citing Castaneda v. Partida, 460 U.S. 482, 496 n. 17 (1977).