Work-related "strength-test" ruled illegal
An Iowa judged has ruled that the company who makes Dial soap, Henkel KGaA, discriminated against women job applicants by making them take a strength test.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed the suit, noting that 97 percent of men passed and only 40 percent of women. While the company claimed the test was created to increase worker safety, the judge in the case said that the EEOC "provided ample additional evidence" and that the test was more difficult than the job.
The test included lifting a 35-pound rod of sausages (it's also a meat company) to a height of 65 inches. One of the women failed the test because she was too short to reach the height.
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
on the one hand, i can kinda-sorta see the reasoning behind making the test harder than the job; better a candidate fail before being hired than find out later that the test didn't stress them nearly as much as the job would. on the other hand, demanding somebody lift something to a given altitude without (say) giving them a stepladder as needed to compensate for smaller stature is obviously an equal opportunity violation. on the third hand, there's mechanical aids for lifting and carrying these days, too, so maybe the whole existence of the test is just a good indicator their workplace environment is outdated and needs redesigning. on the fourth hand, i've just overloaded my hand allowance...
What was discriminating...the job has certain requirements which involve heavy lifting. Alot of women couldn't meet the requirements...so they're not right for the job. People don't hire me if I don't have a certain skill set...but I don't scream discrimination???WTF...
Tommy Gun, This case does not mean you can never have a strength test to determine whether applicants can perform the job.
The problem in this case was not ONLY that the test was much harder than the job (requiring applicants to lift the 35-pound sausage almost 6 times as frequently as on the job) but there was no basis to believe that the test actually helped reduce strength related injuries at the plant (which was the purported purpose of the test).
Because of the disparate impact of the test on women applicants, Dial Corp. had the burden of showing that the test was effective in reducing strength related injuries. Dial Corp. was not able to make that showing. For example, prior to the implementation of the test 46% of the plant workers were female and their rate of injury was actually lower than that of the male employees!
Another problem with the way Dial Corp. administered the test was that they judged men and women differently. For example, some women who completed all the lifting the test failed because they had arched their backs or stood on tip toe while lifting; but men who had arched their backs or stood on tip toe while lifting passed! If that ain't discrimination, what is?
I do think this is discrimination. These sort of jobs don't "need" so-called "strength tests." Now, i HATE when firefighters tests standards are lowered for different people. The fire won't burn less if you can't lift a 200 lb person down a ladder. THOSE are tasks that should NOT have different standards depending on if you're a man or woman. It's PC-gone awry.
Now a soap company? Come on...