Class Action Lawsuit Alleges Citrus County (FL) Sheriff's Physical Abilities Test Is Discriminatory Toward Women

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

Three plaintiffs have filed a proposed class action lawsuit against the sheriff of Citrus County, Florida over allegations that the mandatory physical abilities test implemented by the county’s sheriffs’ office (CCSO) is discriminatory and has a disparate impact upon female employees. The lawsuit claims that female employees subject to CCSO’s discriminatory policies and practices receive less compensation, are promoted less frequently, and lose their jobs at rates higher than male workers. 

Of the defendant’s mandatory physical abilities tests, the complaint says the CCSO relies on “unvalidated and unreliable” procedures for testing and selecting employees for continued employment and promotion. The suit more specifically traces the test back to July 2008, when an “Individual Physical Fitness Plan” was instituted by the CCSO. Failure to complete the test within the allotted timeframe “results in the employee being immediately relieved of duty for thirty days,” the case says, as well as exempt from promotion and required to forfeit specialty pay.

According to the suit, the defendant’s physical abilities test consists of the following requirements that must be completed within eight minutes and 30 seconds: (sic throughout)

(1) Begin the course seated in a vehicle with the seat belt on and both hands on the steering wheel. When instructed, the member will exit the vehicle, removing a training rifle from the vehicle. While using the vehicle as cover, the member will: simulate charging or "racking" the weapon, pulling the trigger, and returning the rifle to the vehicle with the safety "on."

(2) Sprint 40 yard.

(3) Climb over a wall approximately four feet in height.

(4) Run a serpentine, which will consist of 10 poles placed approximately three yards apart.

(5) Jump over three hurdles of various heights (12, 18, and 24") spaced several yards apart without knocking the hurdle off its stand.

(6) Crawl under markers placed approximately 27 inches from the ground and eight feet long without knocking the marker off its stand.

(7) Jump over a shallow ditch approximately three feet in length.

(8) Proceed through a large concrete pipe approximately four to five feet high and six feet long.

(9) Cross a balance beam consisting of three 10-foot logs, for a total of 30 feet. In Length. The member must touch the red mark (or beyond) with at least one foot.

(10) Climb a ladder approximately two stories high (15 feet) and touch a bell at the top. When climbing down the member must touch the next-to-last rung (marked with red) with at least one foot.

(11) Climb a flight of stairs to a simulated one-story landing. When climbing down, the member must touch the next-to-last rung (marked with red) with at least one foot.

(12) Climb a six-foot wall.

(13) Proceed through a door with a training weapon drawn, properly identify a suspect, then holster the weapon. A description of the suspects will be provided at the beginning of the course.

(14) Climb through a window opening with training weapon drawn then holster - or- approach the window with the weapon drawn, look through the window, then holster and proceed through the window.

(15) Drag or pull a sled weighing approximately 150 pounds a distance of seventy feet.

(16) Return to the vehicle and "dry fire" a training handgun six times with each hand.

(17) Indicate that the assignment has been completed over the radio microphone.

According to the lawsuit, at no time has the CCSO conducted research to show why the above test must be more rigorous than that of all other law enforcement agencies in Florida. The CCSO, the case adds, has never wavered from the above-listed requirements, even in the face of injuries suffered by multiple employees while taking the test.

The suit argues that this policy was designed not to measure an employee's physical fitness but "rather is used as a weapon to discriminate against older employees and females."

"Defendant has imposed a 'one-size-fits-all' test despite the fact Defendant's employees perform a vast array of law enforcement tasks for which a physical abilities test is completely irrelevant to the successful performance of their assigned duties," the complaint reads.