At the Armour Star meat packing plant in Fort Madison, Iowa, run by a subsidiary of the Dial Corporation, workers are expected to engage in “repetitive lifting of a 35-pound rod of sausages to a height of approximately 65 inches.” Concerned about a high rate of worker injuries, the company foolishly thought that it could introduce (in 2000) a physical test which “required the repeated lifting of 35 pounds to a height of 65 inches.” Wrong: sued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the company is now going to be paying out $3 million for its troubles. The EEOC argued, and a court agreed, that the test had “disparate impact” on women because 97 percent of men but less than 40 percent of women passed, that it appeared some applicants who failed the test might nonetheless be able to handle the job duties (by standing on tiptoe while heaving the weights, for example, which the test did not permit), and that the company had not shown a “business necessity” to use the test since it could take other measures to improve safety. According to the EEOC, “52 women who were rejected for entry-level production jobs because they had failed a strength test will be offered jobs at Dial and will share approximately $3,390,000.”. (EEOC press releases, Feb. 8 and Sept. 29) (via George’s Employment Blawg)(& welcome Fark readers).
Meatpacker to pay $3m for using strength test
At the Armour Star meat packing plant in Fort Madison, Iowa, run by a subsidiary of the Dial Corporation, workers are expected to engage in “repetitive lifting of a 35-pound rod of sausages to a height of approximately 65 inches.” Concerned about a high rate of worker injuries, the company foolishly thought that it could […]
13 Comments
And how much would they have been expected to pay in workers compensation, short term disability, long term disability, and increased costs for additional and more severe health insurance claims by their employees for on the job injuries? How much will they have to pay in the future, now that they cannot decline to hire people that can’t meet the physical requirements of the job? Once again the EEOC, aided and abetted by the courts, metes (homophonic pun not entirely unintended) out foolishness.
Wow. That’s the first word that came to mind. One would think that the test would be fairer to women, as it makes sure they are considered for the job. Without the test the possibility exists that they wouldn’t even be considered, which would be worse.
What are the legal ramifications of hiring someone you think can do the job, but when they start it turns out they cannot. Can the company terminate their employment at that time?
I think that would be a waste of time for the employee.
Can the test be optional? Maybe the candidates can get a feel for the job before they commit.
The armed forces are suffering much the same problem, and are unable to do much about it due to the same issues, other than lower the standards.
If the average payout is $800,000 per person, moreover, how long do you think these women will really stick around at Armour?
Your biased “reporting” conveniently left out the fact that women had successfully performed the jobs before the testing was implemented. Therefore, the result of the testing was only to exclude qualified women from work on the basis of their gender. These cases are only “overlawyered” if you ignore the facts so you can get right to your preordained conclusion.
>average payout $800,000 per person
I think you must have slipped a digit while dividing. The $3 million will be split among 52 women in varying proportions, with the highest individual back pay award $164,500, per the EEOC’s Sept. release.
William: If 40% of the women tested were able to pass, how is it excluding women? Seems to me women certainly could do the job, and the test PROVES that fact.
Simple fact, people. Men are, on average, stronger and taller than women. They will be more likely to do such a job. Deal with it.
Bulletin and other site matters
Yesterday afternoon our periodic newsletter went out to subscribers, in shorter-than-usual format due to time overcommitments. If you haven’t subscribed yet, you really ought to; sign up here (requires Google registration). The site was down…
This opens up a lot of possibilities. I’m 55 and out of shape but if I go to tryouts for the Atlanta Falcons next summer, can I get them to waive all the physical tests to be a wide receiver?
And how about mental tests? Does this mean that sooner or later, we’ll have to stop testing people for jobs like brain surgery or airline pilot? I mean, those tests ARE discriminatory; they discriminate against people who can’t operate or fly airplanes. But are those skills necessary and should they be tested for? I think it’s highly discriminatory to pick a Lehigh graduate over me for that engineering position just because she could pass some silly tests and I can’t.
Seems like we’re confusing equal opportunity with equal ability. Everyone should have an equal opportunity to work where they please, but not everyone has the ability to do every job.
But the most interesting aspect of this is what will happen when the first worker hired without taking or passing this test gets hurt on the job because they couldn’t properly handle the weight of the goods they routinely processed? And how many lawyers will decline to sue Armour Star in this case because a previous case took away Armour Star’s ability to discriminate based on ability to do a particular job?
Can anyone find a case where just the opposite happened? I’m sure I remember some corp. being sued for not testing to verify that an employee was able to do their job safely.
William Light,
Your biased “commenting” conveniently leaves out the fact that they only applied the test to new hires, not those who had been doing the job, and that workplace injuries have actually declined since then.
Therefore, the result of the testing would seem to be that fewer people get hurt. Your comments are only “honest” if you ignore the facts so you can get right to your preordained conclusion.
Two thoughts:
1. I’d like to see more detail about this case. The allegation is that people who could perform the job were flunking the test, and that the employer’s statistics of increased safety reflected other changes to the workplace environment. If both facts are true, then the employer has a problem under the existing construction of the law—but that reflects a problem with the law because:
2. What rational basis would an employer have to impose a test that didn’t correctly screen for employees? If the test is too restrictive, the employer is hurting itself by limiting the pool from which it can hire. Disparate impact should not be considered prima facie evidence of discrimination without evidence of intent or evidence of complete exclusion of the protected class. Women are still being hired for the job, so there’s no reason to think that the employer imposed the requirement for discriminatory reasons.
24,074 unique visitors
…to this site on Tuesday. Thank you, FARK….
Blawg Review #33
Welcome to Blawg Review #33, the latest installment of the weekly carnival assembling some of the best recent weblog posts about law. If this is your first visit to Overlawyered, we’re among the oldest legal…