WESTFIELD – A city police officer has brought suit against state agencies and the city in Superior Court contending that a physical fitness test which kept her off the force for 11 months is so much more difficult for women than for men that it constitutes discrimination.
Juanita Mejias, on behalf of herself and “all similarly situated individuals” has brought suit against the Executive Office of Public Safety, the Municipal Police Training Committee (MPTC), the state’s Human Resources Division (HRD), the City of Westfield and the Westfield Police Department for violation of the Massachusetts Equal Rights Act, Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964 and state laws, claiming that the Physical Abilities Test (PAT) used as a prerequisite to police academy training is biased toward male candidates.
The PAT is administered by the MPTC “in accordance with the rules, regulations, and standards promulgated by the Civil Service Unit of HRT and EOPS”, according to her complaint.
The complaint includes the city and the department as defendants but points out the Westfield entities were “bound by the requirement and restriction of Massachusetts state law and the other named defendants” and could not hire her sooner “as a result of the other named Defendant’s conduct” which caused her to lose seniority, training opportunities and other benefits.
The complaint filed on her behalf by her attorney points out that she “necessarily had to include Westfield and the WPD in such claims, but believes that they have as well been harmed.”
The PAT includes an obstacle course which must be completed within a specified time limit and Mejias contends that a “five-foot high, flat, smooth wall”, one of the elements of that course, “has a disparate discriminatory impact on females as opposed to males.”
In her case, Mejias was not initially stymied by the PAT.
She was selected as a reserve officer in June, 2001, and after she successfully completed the PAT, joined the roster of the reserve force for almost four years until, in May, 2005, she was selected and hired as a full time officer.
With her appointment, Mejias became required to complete the full time police academy but worked full time as a police officer until a space in an academy class became available in August.
State law required her to again pass the PAT within 30 days of starting the police academy program and, when she retook the exam, she did not complete the obstacle course in the allotted time due to her inability to scale the five foot wall.
In the next eight months, Mejias continued to work as a full time police officer and embarked on a strenuous training regimen with a personal trainer and went so far as to build a five foot wall in her back yard so that she could prepare for her second, and by law last, attempt to pass the PAT.
Mejias again tackled the obstacle course, in April, 2006, and this time she failed the course by 13 seconds.
Apparently disallowed by law to ever take the PAT again and thus barred from employment by any Massachusetts police department, Mejias secured a job with the Westfield police as a civilian dispatcher.
However, in November, 2006, Mejias read a newspaper article and found that she is not the only female applicant who has been blocked by the wall and realized that the PAT has a disparate effect on women.
When she realized that the test had not only been unfair to her but had also been discriminatory toward all aspiring female officers, Mejias sought legal advice and complained to the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination in February, 2007.
That charge was dismissed in November, 2007, so that Mejias could bring the current civil suit on behalf of herself and all women who had been unfairly tested.
Her attorney, Lisa Brodeur-McGan, said in a telephone interview that it is not unusual for individuals to fail to recognize the trend since HRD does not share statistics about applicants passing the test.
She said that most police chiefs only occasionally send female candidates to the police academy so they are not likely to see a trend of female officers failing the test.
She said that statistics show that while about 98 percent of men attempting the PAT pass, as few as 36-50 percent of female applicants pass the PAT.
In a memorandum to the court Brodeur-McGan wrote that the “4/5 Rule” is used to analyze a suspected disparity and “when the pass rate for a minority group is less than 4/5 of the majority group, the disparity is presumed to be suspect.”
In a joint statement of facts filed with the court, the HRD acknowledged that their statistics for the PAT, which has been in use since 1997, showed that the 4/5 Rule calculation results for seven of those years resulted in numbers lower that’s the .8 threshold with results ranging from .57 to .71 while the results for two years “met or exceeded the .8 threshold.”
“All women want is a level playing field. They want it to be fair and they want it to be relevant to the job they are hired to do” Brodeur-McGan said.
She said that with the disparity recognized, the defendants have to show that there is a “business necessity” to include the wall in the PAT and contends there are other measures of physical abilities which are not discriminatory to a class of applicants.
A designated representative of the MPTC was deposed and said that he does not know why the climbing wall is a necessary component of the PAT. He said that the PAT is not a requirement of the academy but is required by HRD although he conceded that, since the PAT requirement is listed on the MPTC website, it could appear to be a MPTC requirement.
None of the persons deposed said that any such climbing wall is part of the academy program.
Brodeur-McGan said that she has argued that Mejias should be certified as a representative of a class of victims who have been injured by the disparate nature of the climbing wall element of the PAT and said “if the court allows it (a class action certification) any woman who fails the test is represented and there will be remedies for those women.”
Mejias has already accomplished part of the remedy that other women may seek in that she was able to resume her career as a police officer after a hiatus during which, she contends, she “lost certain opportunities for professional education and advancement.”
After she failed the PAT a second time, Mejias was terminated as a police officer and worked as a civilian dispatcher.
However, Brodeur-McGan reports she learned that, according to an HRD interpretation of state law, Mejias could again attempt the PAT if she was again appointed a police officer.
In the meantime, Brodeur-McGan writes in the memorandum to the court, “In 2006, reacting to concerns voiced by legislators and other regarding female passage rates, HRD modified the PAT by changing one element: it placed toe holds in the five foot smooth climbing wall” although she noted that “these toe holds did not bring the female pass rates up to an acceptable level.”
Mejias was again appointed as a police officer and, when she attempted the PAT with the modified climbing wall in August, 2007, she passed the test and went on to complete the academy course to become a permanent full time officer in the city.
Brodeur-McGan said that the next step in Mejias’ lawsuit will be determined by the decision of the court regarding the certification of the case as a class action suit.
