Ct Prison Hiring Biased?

[MJS]

http://www.courant.com/community/bridgeport/hc-ap-ct-prisonguards-discmay09,0,1365253.story

BRIDGEPORT—
A federal judge has ruled that Connecticut's prisons department discriminated against more than 100 women who applied to be guards.

U.S. District Judge Janet Hall granted a motion for summary judgment in a class-action lawsuit filed against the Department of Correction in 2008.

She agreed with the plaintiffs, who argued that a physical fitness test that required applicants meet certain times for a 1.5 mile run was discriminatory.

Seth Marnin, an attorney for the lead plaintiff in the case, said Monday they will be seeking more than $1 million in damages, and may ask that some of the women be hired as guards.

Brian Garnett, a spokesman for the department, said he would have to look into the ruling before he could comment

The article in the paper had more than the link. Some things that were missing:

Males, 21-29 had to run 1.5 in 12:25.

Females the same age had 14:49.

In 2004 a female passed everything but the run, thus she was the one who sparked the suit.

Supposedly, according to the lawyers, theres no place in any CT prison where anyone could run nearly that far away.

Judge Janet Hall, said taht the run was not correlated to the job of a CO.

My questions are....how do the lawyers and judge know this? I assume they took the blueprints from all of the facilities in the state, to determine theres nowhere in the prison you would have to run that far. Gee, thats funny....I recall numerous times of people, myself included, running from one end of the facility to another, up stairs, to get to a disturbance. Now, once you get there, you also have to deal with an inmate/inmates, who may fight with you.

Sorry, IMHO, this suit is a bunch of ********! It sounds like a case of, "Oh I think I'll try to get a state job, but I wont prep for it. Oh wait, I failed...now what???" I think that having seperate test times for males/females is also ********. Sorry, but when you get the job, the same 130lb woman, who stands 5'8, the same man, whos 6'0, 200lbs, is going to have to fight the inmate who doesnt wanna come out of his cell.

If you can't handle the job, then I guess its not for you.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

no your wrong. an inmate is definitely going to do different things to a 5'8 130 pound woman then he is to a 6'0 200 pound man.

other then that I have always thought double standards was bullcrap, especially for this type of a job. If a woman cant meet the requirements then she needs to go find a job along with all the other men who cant meet the requirements either.

 

[MJS]

no your wrong. an inmate is definitely going to do different things to a 5'8 130 pound woman then he is to a 6'0 200 pound man.

Perhaps there was some misunderstanding. My point was, the female CO is still going to have to fight the same scum bag inmate that doesnt want to come out of his cell, be cuffed, etc, that I'd have to deal with, or someone else my size or larger. All the dirty sex talk and sexual hand guestures that'll be made to the female CO, aside, she wont be exempt from dealing with inmates that're larger than she is.

other then that I have always thought double standards was bullcrap, especially for this type of a job. If a woman cant meet the requirements then she needs to go find a job along with all the other men who cant meet the requirements either.

Agreed. I'm sure this type of thread could sound sexist to some, but IMO it isn't. Anyone is free to join the PD, the FD, etc, but if you can't do the job, if you can't get and hold the respect and trust of your fellow coworkers, then I'm sorry, but the job isn't for them.

 

[Tez3]

I've heard the same things said about the female army medics here, however they have won more medals for bravery than the male medics, it's not gender bias either, if you read the citations for their medals the girls have done an amazing job. the girls aren't hulking great women either most are about average height and size. They carry the same packs, the same weapons and do the same job well despite everyone saying they wouldn't be able to and yes there are different run times for males and females as there are for different age groups. Older men have a longer time to do the run than the younger men, it doesn't mean that much when it comes down to it.

 

[LuckyKBoxer]

I've heard the same things said about the female army medics here, however they have won more medals for bravery than the male medics, it's not gender bias either, if you read the citations for their medals the girls have done an amazing job. the girls aren't hulking great women either most are about average height and size. They carry the same packs, the same weapons and do the same job well despite everyone saying they wouldn't be able to and yes there are different run times for males and females as there are for different age groups. Older men have a longer time to do the run than the younger men, it doesn't mean that much when it comes down to it.

see I dont have a problem with that...
I am not saying that the requirements need to be unrealistic for women to get a job.
They need to be realistic for whatever the job may require and throw at you. If anyone is able to meet those requirements then great, but I think having tiered requirements for different sexes or ages is stupid. You either have the tools to do the job or you dont.
saying that an older man is fine being 10 minutes slower then a younger man does nothing but show that the job really doesnt need someone to be faster then the older mans time, or it shows that peopel are more willing to be politically correct then have someone who is capable in a job.

 

[Tez3]

see I dont have a problem with that...
I am not saying that the requirements need to be unrealistic for women to get a job.
They need to be realistic for whatever the job may require and throw at you. If anyone is able to meet those requirements then great, but I think having tiered requirements for different sexes or ages is stupid. You either have the tools to do the job or you dont.
saying that an older man is fine being 10 minutes slower then a younger man does nothing but show that the job really doesnt need someone to be faster then the older mans time, or it shows that peopel are more willing to be politically correct then have someone who is capable in a job.

http://www.soldiermagazine.co.uk/archives/magazine/jan11/jan11feature6.htm

I tried to copy just the grid but it wouldn't play, the article is interesting anyway. Slightly off topic I'm older by several years than the oldest age there but I'm going to try to get to that standard in a few months and be sponsored for a military charity. I'm hoping it's achievable!

 

[yorkshirelad]

see I dont have a problem with that...
I am not saying that the requirements need to be unrealistic for women to get a job.
They need to be realistic for whatever the job may require and throw at you. If anyone is able to meet those requirements then great, but I think having tiered requirements for different sexes or ages is stupid. You either have the tools to do the job or you dont.
saying that an older man is fine being 10 minutes slower then a younger man does nothing but show that the job really doesnt need someone to be faster then the older mans time, or it shows that peopel are more willing to be politically correct then have someone who is capable in a job.

If you don't pass the physical test, whose fault is it? I can't believe they're making a big deal about this. If a guy didn't make the cut then filed a discriminatory suit such as this, he would be a laughing stock. If this woman can't run 1 1/2 miles n 14 minutes she should not be in the job. BTW, there are certain jobs/schools in the US Atmy that require a minimum PT test (APFT) measured in the 17-21 standard regardless of age.

Some jobs have to include discriminatory practices during the hiring process. If you don't have a four year degree, you can't join the FBI. If you have asthma after the age of thirteen, you can't join the US armed services. If you can't pass the fitness test to become a Corrections Officer, you can't get in. But some people still argue the toss.

This reminds me of that programme on British tv "Ultimate Force" about the SAS. I wondered why only two seasons played on BBC America. Then, when I saw the beginning of the 3rd season, I understood why it wasn't shown on US tv. In the third season, the SAS badge......wait for it.......a woman (lol). I laughed my *** off before turning the thing off. No wonder Chris Ryan left the show after the second season.:rofl:

 

[Carol]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2011/05/10/judge_says_conn_discriminated_against_aspiring_female_prison_guards/?rss_id=Boston+Globe+--+Today%27s+paper+A+to+Z

“The defendant has presented no evidence showing the timed 1 1/2-mile run to be predictive of who can perform the essential physical functions of the job’’ of a guard, Hall wrote.

In 2007, the state changed the run portion of the test from 1 1/2 miles to 300 meters.

1.5 miles is 2400 meters. To change the running requirement from 2400 meters to 300 meters means that in 2007 the state dropped its running requirement to one-eighth of what it was.

So...the state couldn't justify why they had the requirement, and the state itself didn't maintain the requirement.

Something like 80-90 percent of workplace lawsuits are decided in favor of the employer. I can see why this one did not.

 

[Tez3]

The young and inexperienced need to run further and faster than the older more experienced people. Old and sneaky beats young and fit everytime.

 

[Bruno@MT]

I guess it depends on what the test is supposed to achieve.
If it is to insure a general level of fitness, then I can see different requirements for men and women, simply because their bodies are different, and 'healthy fit' means different things in both cases. If it is to insure that any warden can reach A from B in C minutes time, then different requirements make no sense.

Another issue is that administrators might well choose to put requirements in place, just to insure that women won't make them. Not for any real reason, other than to keep women out. Like: can't bench press 200 pounds? Sorry you're not allowed because you might need to push bubba away from you.

 

[punisher73]

If you all have to do the same job, then you should all have the same requirements PERIOD.

When I went through my MI cert courses, we had a 1/2 mile shuttle run (back and forth between two cones for 15 laps). Seriously, I could do a slow jog/walk and beat the women's time for my age group. I think for push ups the females had to do 7, whereas the guys had to do around 30-35 push ups.

I agree, find a baseline for the job and have the same standards for everyone. I even think that there should be yearly fitness tests for officers to make sure that they are keeping up their fitness levels. If you fall below it, then you are moved out of that position, if you can't pass after a certain grace period then you are terminated.

 

[sgtmac_46]

http://www.courant.com/community/bridgeport/hc-ap-ct-prisonguards-discmay09,0,1365253.story



The article in the paper had more than the link. Some things that were missing:

Males, 21-29 had to run 1.5 in 12:25.

Females the same age had 14:49.

In 2004 a female passed everything but the run, thus she was the one who sparked the suit.

Supposedly, according to the lawyers, theres no place in any CT prison where anyone could run nearly that far away.

Judge Janet Hall, said taht the run was not correlated to the job of a CO.

My questions are....how do the lawyers and judge know this? I assume they took the blueprints from all of the facilities in the state, to determine theres nowhere in the prison you would have to run that far. Gee, thats funny....I recall numerous times of people, myself included, running from one end of the facility to another, up stairs, to get to a disturbance. Now, once you get there, you also have to deal with an inmate/inmates, who may fight with you.

Sorry, IMHO, this suit is a bunch of ********! It sounds like a case of, "Oh I think I'll try to get a state job, but I wont prep for it. Oh wait, I failed...now what???" I think that having seperate test times for males/females is also ********. Sorry, but when you get the job, the same 130lb woman, who stands 5'8, the same man, whos 6'0, 200lbs, is going to have to fight the inmate who doesnt wanna come out of his cell.

If you can't handle the job, then I guess its not for you.

No kidding! Different standards for women and men is completely idiocy......unless they are supposed to be doing a different job, which isn't the case........they are dealing with the same individuals and same dangers, so why not the same physical standards? Simple......because they want to fill the job with as much quotas as women as possible.

 

[OKenpo942]

I agree with both above posts. If you cannot meet the standard set forth, you should not get the job over one who can, male or female, period.

You also stated that she passed everything but the run. The run is one of the prerequisites for getting the job. She didn't meet the requirements to be considered for the job.

Who cares if she will never have to run that far in any of their correctional facilities. She will, no doubt be placed in a situation where she has to put hands on an inmate or has to defend herself against an inmate. If you can't handle a run with prior knowledge of what is required, how can you possibly be prepared for the dynamic and variable nature of physical conflict?

I also agree that if it is the same job for both sexes, they should both be required to do the same job. Both to get and to perform the job.

James