"repetitive lifting of a 35-pound rod of sausages to a height of approximately 65 inches.

*fap fap fap*

So it goes against equal oppurtunity rules to test an employee's ability to do the job. So you hire people and don't test them ahead of time, these people then find out 2 weeks down the road that they can't do the required lifting. Then the new employee quits, and you then have to find a new employee to fill the gap resulting in costly turn around time. Not to mention some down time as you train your new employees every couple of weeks.

makes sense to me.

Couldn't this be appealed and demonstrated that the lifting is a BFOQ (Bona Fide Occupational Qualification) and should be exempt as such?

GooberMcFly

"repetitive lifting of a 35-pound rod of sausages to a height of approximately 65 inches.

*fap fap fap*

More like, *faaaap.............faaaap..............faaaap................

Is this a spoof news story? This can't be real... can it?

drdank: I am going to *guess* there is supposed to be some sort of reasonable accommodation made. I want everyone in the NFL to be my height and weight and as slow and uncoordinated as I am so I can play, too. OK, I could be 49er now, but that's not what I mean.

that it appeared some applicants who failed the test might nonetheless be able to handle the job duties (by standing on tiptoe while heaving the weights, for example, which the test did not permit)

ummmm. isn't using poor technique the way alot of work-related injuries occur? The whole point of the testing was to cut back on injuries. If they allow these practices, they'll just have OSHA on their back instead of the EEOC.

Christ, people!!! You can't just sue every company that you're not qualified to work for.

salo2112:

I want everyone in the NFL to be my height and weight and as slow and uncoordinated as I am so I can play

i gotta admit, that sounds like quality entertainment.

We actually had a blind guy try to get a job with my company once....


....as a security guard.

question: are EEOC issues strictly presided over by members of the committee? can one appeal their decision to a jury?

From the EEOC. It's real.

1point21Kigowatts: They already have something like it for basketball - it's called the WNBA. :-)

Man, that's weak.

/ahem....

salo2112: it's called the WNBA. :-)

OHHHH, SNAAAAAAAPPP!!! no you di'int!

It was the way that the test was designed that was the problem. It does indeed appear that it was designed to select only male employees.

Many women would have had no problem doing the job. (getting the sausage on the self), but the test was structured such that men would be more likely to pass.

z_gringo: It does indeed appear that it was designed to select only male employees.

Or that given the test, more men were able to pass than women. Doesn't mean it was designed that way.

Im_Just_An_Ordinary_Panda: This can't be real... can it?


Sadly yes. Even sadder is that me draft of the "Attorney Extermination Act of 2005" has not even been presented to Committee...

z_gringo: Many women would have had no problem doing the job.

obviously. the 40% of women who passed demonstrated that. the other 60% who couldn't pass have no legitimate gripe in my book

Ah yes, blame the lawyers for enforcing the law which the legislature passed.

You like the Equal Employment Act? This is what comes with it.

Many women would have had no problem doing the job. (getting the sausage on the self)

Judging by the world's rapidly-growing population, very many women are capable of getting the sausage on the self.

Wow, that's silly.

Gotta love people trying to take advantage of laws that were designed to help somebody else.

Programmer Cat: Did Daredevil go broke again?

Who knows? It was really wierd because we really didn't know how to say something to him.

Hmmm...I looked up the case on Lexis. The judge declined to overturn the jury's verdict in favor of the women, but specifically stated that "statistical evidence is alone insufficient to establish intentional discrimination" and that "the EEOC produced ample additional evidence of overt acts on the part of Dial employees from which the jury could infer intentional discrimination." I guess without hearing the evidence the jury heard, I'm not sure what to think.

Interesting side note: the test itself was developed by two women. Hmmm....

This makes me want to puke.

Gig103: This makes me want to puke.

Don't like sausage?

// who would make a 5 foot tall shelf, and put heavy boxes up there regularly? Poor warehouse design!

LOL KyngNothing, but no. The fact that the only evidence the defense had was numbers, and yet they still won. Especially hearing the judge's quote of "Statistical evidence is alone insufficient to establish intentional discrimination".

I Farking hate when stupid crap like this happens.
I work at Air Canada, where before getting hired, I was asked well over 8 times, "Are you willing to lift bags in excess of 75lbs regularly?" and I am, but they hired people who said yes and struggle with 50 lb bags. Because of the fact you cant fire csomeone incompetent legally, my back gets a massive strain put on it from these nimrods. I say, allow testing.

1point21Jigowatts

Christ, people!!! You can't just sue every company that you're not qualified to work for.

No, you only need to do it once. ;)

We actually had a blind guy try to get a job with my company once....

....as a security guard.

I can beat that. I used to know with a guy who was actually hired as a security guard for a certain well-known stereo/speaker company in Massachusetts. Not only was he legally blind, but he was so old and frail that he could hardly walk, let alone defend himself.

He held on to that job for about a week.

Hand models needed. Hands not necessary.*

*As required by the federal govement.

when I worked at Time Warner cable, the requirements were that we had to be able to carry around the monster 28' ladder that was around 75 lbs. They asked you if you could do that and if you were afraid of heights in the interview.

Well basically every little guy and most women who enter training fail out because they can't handle the ladder. I remember this 400lbs guy failed because the ladder's specs say he was beyond the weight limit. Also because the safety belt couldn't fit around him. Then there was this one older woman who took literally 15 minutes to go up 30 feet.

So I guess they could all sue.

From the EEOC link:

"The EEOCs lawsuit, #3:02-CV-10109, filed in September 2002, claimed that Dials use of a strength test, which required the repeated lifting of 35 pounds to a height of 65 inches, discriminated against women, since only approximately 40% of female applicants passed the test, while virtually all male applicants passed the test. Although women had successfully performed the jobs in the sausage making department before the test was implemented in January 2000, Dial claimed that the test was necessary in order to reduce injuries."

So, they made a test that DIDN'T represent the duties the people had to perform, but discriminated against women. Gee, what a surprise they got sued and lost. The Overlawyered link doesn't work, so I can't even determine thier side of the story.

Geroge Washington is spinning in his grave.

Hey, I know... since competence is apparently not required and testing can be "massaged" away with legal muscle, I dont' really feel like taking the Professional Engineers Exam. Maybe I should just change disciplines too! Hmmm, Structural sounds good to me. And if I can't pass the test, I'll sue. Then I can design the bridges and buildings we use every day. Sounds like fun huh!

Talk about friggen DUMB

Oh where oh where has common sense gone, oh where oh where can it be?

/sorry for the song
//but dayum that sausage is long
///ok, rhyming now, must end slashies
////slashy slashy?

Sally struggles spiritedly to shift the sack of sausages to the shelf so she can show off her strength and skill.

Judging by the world's rapidly-growing population, very many women are capable of getting the sausage on the self.

Repeatedly putting the sausage on the shelf? What is this job, an adult bookstore?

Sounds like OSHA might be in the ondeck circle if the EEOC thing doesn't work out. Should've been in OSHA's hands first anyways.

FARK'd?

Looking for ANY kind of qualification is inherently discriminatory.
Jobs should always be filled by the first person to apply, no exceptions.

I have sort of a bad lower back, can't carry anything too heavy without being in pain for days afterward. I'm gonna go apply to become a fireman and when they tell me "no way" I'll sue the crap out of them. Cha Ching!

/Joking, of course.

farked

When I was interviewed for my current job, they asked me a bunch of questions so I could prove that I knew basics of networking. I think I'll sue.

This is the real question in the case:

Although women had successfully performed the jobs in the sausage making department before the test was implemented in January 2000, Dial claimed that the test was necessary in order to reduce injuries.

So, it's not if the company can test for the ability to do a job but if failing the test meant someone couldn't do the job.

drdank asks: Couldn't this be appealed and demonstrated that the lifting is a BFOQ...

Looks like the court already looked at the issue and agreed with the EEOC "that it appeared some applicants who failed the test might nonetheless be able to handle the job duties (by standing on tiptoe while heaving the weights, for example, which the test did not permit), and that the company had not shown a 'business necessity' to use the test since it could take other measures to improve safety."

So now Dial has to bear the brunt of workmen's comp injuries when said employees who cannot perform the duties within the realm of ability end up straining their back due to the repetitive lifting? Egads...

I work in a company where you have to make the product correctly or else it can a) kill someone or b) get the entire million dollar plus lot pulled from the market in a nasty public scandal. We have issues now because people on the floor with a high-school education or slightly above make repetitive errors despite exhaustive training and it clogs up the system with paperwork to justify and explain/resolve the discrepancies.

Is it impossible to fire someone because they are an idiot and cannot learn the job? Is the legal system trying to tell us that stupidity is just a litigable discriminatory descriptor?

cargrrl82: Sounds like OSHA might be in the ondeck circle if the EEOC thing doesn't work out. Should've been in OSHA's hands first anyways.


shiat.. they'll get the hammer from OSHA for designing their warehouse with shelves 5 feet high and requiring a 35lb load limit to be manually loaded to that shelve.

/Just sat through a 30 hour OSHA cert

tarrant84
You like the Equal Employment Act? This is what comes with it.
Actually, I don't like it one bit. Situations such as this are part of the reason.

Eggbert does tech support!

Soon, we'll all go down to our local strip clubs and see fat hairy men dancing on the poles. Turns out they couldn't hire based on sex and Billy Bob sued. Now, enjoy his biatchtits.

I'm going to go to the army, fail the strength/fitness test, and sue the hell out of them for "discrimating".

Its sad that this story is true...