Chicago Fire Department Faces Sex Discrimination Suit
The Chicago Fire Department’s hiring process has been the subject of a number of discrimination lawsuits over the years. Most recently, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals awarded $30 million in damages to 111 African-American firefighter applicants who had filed a lawsuit over entrance exams they took in 1995. The case went to the US Supreme Court previously over the EEOC 300 day rule limitations period.
In 2008, five women who failed the paramedic physical ability test sued the city. The case is still pending in Federal court.
Now, a 27 year old female applicant who had passed the written test but failed the physical abilities test, is suing CFD alleging that the test discriminates against women. Samantha Vasich alleges the PAT creates a disparate impact on women candidates by unlawfully screening them out at a higher rate than male candidates, without a legitimate basis.
Vasich passed the written test in 2006, and in 2009 took the physical ability test, which had four components: arm lift, arm endurance, leg lift and hose drag/high rise pack carry. Vasich rigorously prepared for the test hiring a personal trainer to assist her. She took the test in January, 2010, and claims she completed all of the requirements. However in February, 2010 Vasich was informed that she was not selected because she had not passed in the PAT.
The lawsuit seeks class action status for similarly situated women who passed the CFD written exam but failed the physical abilities test. The lawsuit seeks retroactive seniority and benefits to the date on which they would have been hired, back pay and other damages.
The complaint alleges: “There is no empirical data demonstrating that the PAT is predictive of or significantly correlated with important elements of job performance. The individual physical abilities tested by the PAT have not been proven to be underlying factors for performing essential or critical physical functions of the job of firefighter (that is, the PAT does not have demonstrated construct validity).”
Here is a copy of the complaint. Vasich v Chicago
How many men failed the CFD’s PAT? Should they sue the CFD also becuase the PAT was “too toug”h for them?
Ron
The focus of these cases is (1) does the test disproportionately impact women (ie. 80% of men pass but only 2% of women pass), and if so (2) is the test a valid test.
I would hope (and I fully expect) CFD has their ducks in a row to demonstrate that the test is valid.
To me, it sounds as if the components are valid. The question will come down to (most likely) determining if the weight/rep/time limits are valid to the position being tested for.
I do not understand why someone fails something and they feel untitled to sue. If the test is the same and has been the same and you don’t pass then how can you sue. Are they supposed to have one test for men and then and easier test for women so women can pass?
Ms. Samantha Vasich didn’t pass the CPAT and in her complaint and claims a “Disparate Impact on Women”.
She did not pass a Nationally Accepted “Standardized” Physical Abilities Examination (unless their were unknown modifications to it) that other Women, in such diverse Cities and agencies such as San Francisco, San Diego, Cal Fire and Contra Costa County and Minneapolis, Minn. have passed.
This case will be interesting to observe as
her claims of the differences between, what the these agencies have given as the CPAT exam and what the Chicago FD used.
I know someone who is in excellent physical condition and CFD failed him on his PAT. The test is very easy.