Applicant Strength
Test was Gender Discrimination
An appeals court has upheld
a $3.4 million verdict against an Iowa meat processing plant
charged with discrimination against women because of a
pre-employment strength test it required new job applicants
to take. The case was brought by the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on behalf of 52 women who were
rejected for entry-level jobs at the Fort Madison Armour
Star meat plant which is owned by Dial Corporation.
At issue in the case was a
strength-testing requirement used in the plant to evaluate
job applicants, which was implemented in reaction to a large
number of workplace injuries. At trial, the EEOC provided
evidence that fewer women were hired after the testing was
implemented and that it had a disparate impact on women
because of the test's design.
Dial Corp. implemented the
test for entry-level jobs in the sausage-making department
of the Iowa plant in 2000. The jobs were physically
demanding, requiring the repetitive lifting of a 35-pound
rod of sausages to a height of approximately 65 inches above
floor level. Before the test was adopted, 46 percent of the
individuals hired for the job had been women. After the
test was implemented, 97 percent of male applicants, but
only 38 percent of female applicants, passed. The number of
women hires dropped to 15 percent after the test was
implemented.
Dial said the test was job
related and necessary to reduce the number of on-the-job
injuries at the plant. The plant's job-injury rate was
reduced after the strength test was implemented, the company
pointed out at trial. The EEOC's expert in industrial
organization testified that the tests were not related to
the actual job tasks and that injuries were reduced due to
other safety mechanisms put in place by Dial. There also
was testimony that the injury rate for women employees was
lower than that for men in two of the three years before
Dial implemented the pre-employment strength test.
The EEOC contended that the
strength tests had an illegal disparate impact on female
applicants and that Dial had not shown a business necessity
for the tests. The appeals court found that there was
sufficient evidence to show that Dial had engaged in a
pattern or practice of intentional sex bias through use of
the test. The court emphasized that although Dial knew
about the statistical differences, it continued to use the
strength test. There was evidence that women and men worked
the same job together for many years before the strength
test was instituted, the court said. There was also
evidence of women and men receiving similar comments on
their test forms, but only the males receiving offers of
employment.
This case points out that
whenever an employment test or qualification of any type has
a disparate impact on a protected class – acting to weed out
large numbers of applicants from those groups – the EEOC and
the courts will examine them very carefully. The courts
will look at whether the same result could be accomplished
with a test that doesn’t have the disparate impact and at
whether the employer knew of the disparate impact and
continued using the test.
If you have
any questions regarding discrimination in your workplace, please
contact Jack Lipovac or Clint Davis at HR-OneSource
(515) 221-1718,
lipovacj@hr-onesource.com or
davisc@hr-onesource.com.
|
