Court Upholds Employer's Non-Linear Application of Test
Emily K. Demonte and David W. Arnold, Esq.
Reid Psychological Systems
On September 2, 1999, the U.S. District Court of Connecticut decided a case
in which the plaintiff was denied the opportunity to become a police officer
based on his score on a written exam. As part of the application process, the
plaintiff, Robert Jordan, took a written exam for the position of entry-level
police officer. One component of the written exam was the Wonderlic Personnel
Test ("WPT") and Scholastic Level Exam. Wonderlic's User's Manual
suggests a range of 20_27 for consideration as a patrol officer, and the City of
New London followed that recommendation. Jordan scored a 33 on the exam, too
high for consideration as a police officer. Subsequent to notification of his
ineligibility for the position of police officer due to his high test score,
Jordan filed suit against the City of New London.
Jordan contended there was a "violation of the Equal Protection Clauses
of the United States and Connecticut constitutions stemming from the defendants'
hiring practice." In deciding the basis on which the claim was to be
judged, the court drew upon Schweiker v. Wilson (1981). "Social and
economic [action] that does not employ suspect classifications or impinge on
fundamental rights must be upheld under the equal protection component of the
Fifth Amendment when themeans are rationally related to a legitimate
purpose." Jordan agreed that he is not a member of a suspect class and
there is no fundamental right to employment as a police officer. Therefore, the
rational basis review was used as the standard to evaluate the plaintiff's
claim. Jordan further conceded that increasing employment longevity and reducing
the high costs associated with employee turnover are legitimate government
purposes.
Plaintiff provided evidence that there is a lack of a definitive relationship
between high cognitive ability and job satisfaction, performance, and longevity.
However, in the Court's opinion, the "Defendant need not show thatthe
policy is wise. Defendant need show only that there was reason to believe that
employing the classification could be beneficial in achieving their stated
goal." As the City of New London followed Wonderlic's recommendations as
well as reasonably relying on professional literature that concludes,
"hiring overqualified applicants leads to job dissatisfaction and
turnover," they did not violate the Equal Protection Clauses.
In its opinion the court cites Stein v. National City Bank (1991),
"[I]t is not the function of the courts to judge the wisdom of particular
business policies, but to ensure that such policies are made on a rational
basis." Moreover, "Because defendants have shown that there is a
rational basis for its policy, it cannot be found that the policy is arbitrary
or irrational." In granting summary judgment for the defendant, the court
said "Plaintiff may have been disqualified unwisely but he was not denied
equal protection."
References
Jordan v. City of New London, 3:97CV1012 (1999).
Schweiker v. Wilson, 450 U.S. 221, 242 (1981).
Stein v. National City Bank, 942 F.2d 1062 (6th Cir. 1991).
January 2000 Table of Contents | TIP Home | SIOP Home