Gender Norming: Should it be Used?

• In Event: Roundtable: University-Law Enforcement Partnership to Improve Physical Agility Testing

Abstract

This paper covers the issues currently before the local law enforcement agency in reviewing their physical agility testing. This agency's physical agility testing had recently seen a change in its composition. The first test consisted of detention applicants dragging a weighted dummy. Then the applicants proceed to the same "suspect" chase that is given to the commissioned deputies. This obstacle course in no way resembles what a detention deputy might experience. Then two years ago the Lieutenant and other staff members of the Training Academy, none of whom carry any certifications in physiology, health and fitness, or physical agility test design took it upon themselves to change the Detention Deputy's physical agility test. The motivation was simply an attempt to design an agility course that would more closely represent what a detention deputy would be called upon to do. However, there was no study done to see what the agility test should consist of, or what items incorporated into this new test that would be viewed as a business necessity and therefore should be tested for. This is a serious violation of court case law as discussed in United States v. Erie. The agency is balancing a desire to have physically fit employees and to obtain those employees through an equitable process. In fact, society expects law enforcement officers to be physically fit. Departments could be held liable for hiring officers who possess below average strength and ability. Therefore, a wide variety of physical agility tests had been developed. Courts are stating that once a physical agility test is established by police agencies, those agencies are legally required to demonstrate that the test is job related, and that the skills on the test predict future success on the job and have shown a previous pattern of striking down testing procedures for many years now. Therefore, an agency who wishes to use physical agility courses to test applicants should first have a Job Task Analysis completed by competent, certified experts. Additionally, agencies should establish a physical fitness program for incumbent officers. Key legal issues around physical agility testing are explored, and several legal decisions are highlighted for their impact. Court cases specifically examined are; Lanning v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, who allowed an unqualified individual to design their standards and United States V. Erie criticizes agencies who use fellow officers to establish agility tests without statistical support, or expert opinions. Alspaugh v. Commission on Law Enforcement Standards, the ruling in the Alspaugh case supported gender norming standards. Griggs v. Duke Power upholds the physical job-related requirements as being legally valid.

Author

• David Hein, Sedgwick County Sheriff's Office