Fourth Circuit Court Of Appeals Holds That Gender Normed Physical Fitness Tests Do Not Run Afoul Of Title VII

LR-Workers-SkyscraperAs we are all aware, Title VII of the Civil Rights act of 1964 prohibits, among other things, discrimination in employment on the basis of sex. This prohibition extends not only to intentionally discriminatory conduct, but also to neutral conduct that has a disparate impact upon employees due to their sex. Through the years, employers seeking to condition employment on particular physical attributes such as size, strength, and/or stamina were often sued under Title VII by female employees alleging that use of certain tests or standards to gauge such factors had a discriminatory disparate impact upon them due to their sex. In order to avoid liability under Title VII, such employers had to establish that the desired physical attributes were “bona fide occupational qualifications” (“BFOQ”), in that they were necessary to perform the essential functions of the particular job. As judicial precedent confirms, establishing that a particular physical attribute is a BFOQ requires significant and particularized factual proof well beyond the mere assertion that demanding jobs require a certain size, degree of physical strength, and/or fitness. For example, if an employer required applicants to be able to lift 150 pounds, it had to show that a particular and necessary job function required the ability to lift such weight.

Not surprisingly, in order to promote diversity in their workforces and avoid potential liability associated with the disparate impact of physical standards, some employers seeking candidates for physically demanding jobs, particularly for positions where general fitness was the desired attribute (as opposed to the particularized ability to lift, pull or pull a certain weight) adopted differing physical standards for men and women. The legality of these differing physical fitness standards has remain largely unexplored by the courts, until recently.

In Bauer v. Lynch, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed a finding by the District Court that the FBI had discriminated against a male applicant by adopting and adhering to “gender normed” physical standards. In Bauer, the plaintiff was a male applicant for a Special Agent position with the FBI. The FBI required that Special Agents meet fitness standards with respect to sit ups, pushups, a timed sprint and a timed run. The FBI maintained that the standards were “gender normed”, meaning that while they were different for men and women they were nonetheless designed to measure the same degree of overall fitness by taking into account physiological differences between men and women. The standard that the plaintiff failed to meet was the pushup standard. The FBI required male applicants to successfully complete 30 pushups, while plaintiff was only able to complete 29. Female candidates, on the other hand, were only required to complete 14 pushups. The plaintiff claimed that by utilizing these differing standard s the FBI discriminated against him on the basis of sex. The District Court agreed, noting that “but for” the fact Plaintiff was male he would have met the Special Agent requirements due to his completion of more than 14 pushups.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded. Concluding that “men and women are simply not physiologically the same for purposes of physical fitness programs”, the Court opined that utilization of physical fitness standards that distinguish between the sexes on the basis of these physiological differences do not necessarily violate Title VII. The Court determined that such differing standards are lawful where the standards impose the same burden on both men and women—e.g. they require the “same level of physical fitness of each.” The Court thus remanded the case to the District Court to address, among other issues, the question whether the differing standards imposed an equal burden on both men and women.

Will Judicial Acceptance Of Gender Normed Standards Continue To Grow? If So, How Hard Will It Be To Establish That Differing Standards Impose An Equal Burden?

As legal challenges to these purported “gender normed” standards have been relatively few and far between, it will be interesting to see if other courts adopt the Fourth Circuit’s conclusions with respect to their legality under Title VII. Of equal interest may be the discussion and arguments pertaining to whether the differing standards actually impose an “equal burden”. While this will no doubt be addressed in greater detail upon remand in the Bauer matter, the appellate court’s recitation of facts identifies the likely key areas of inquiry upon remand.

This blog/web site presents general information only. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice, and you should not consider or rely on it as such. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation. This website is not an offer to represent you. You should not act, or refrain from acting, based upon any information at this website. Neither our presentation of such information nor your receipt of it creates nor will create an attorney-client relationship with any reader of this blog. Any links from another site to the blog are beyond the control of Pullman & Comley, LLC and do not convey their approval, support or any relationship to any site or organization. Any description of a result obtained for a client in the past is not intended to be, and is not, a guarantee or promise the firm can or will achieve a similar outcome.

Subscribe to Updates

About Our Labor, Employment and Employee Benefits Law Blog

Alerts, commentary, and insights from the attorneys of Pullman & Comley’s Labor, Employment Law and Employee Benefits practice on such workplace topics as labor and employment law, counseling and training, litigation, union issues, as well as employee benefits and ERISA matters.

Other Blogs by Pullman & Comley

Connecticut Health Law Blog

Education Law Notes

For What It May Be Worth

Recent Posts


Jump to Page