A timber company used a ‘physical performance test” to assess candidates for entry-level positions handling lumber and cutting wood. The test was developed by industrial psychologists. In its original version, the test consisted of a “board pull ergometer” (pulling 30 to 70 lb. weights for specified durations to assess strength), a step test (stepping up and down on an 11 inch bench for six minutes), and a visual inspection of “gross body coordination.” Additionally, the applicant’s heart rate was measured during the step test to measure endurance. Applicants whose heart rates exceeded a specified level were stopped and deemed to have failed the test. The revised test consisted solely of a “weight stack” (total weight of 40 lbs.). For the three years that the original test was in effect, 70.2 percent of male applicants and 29.8 percent of the female applicants passed the test. Twenty-four percent of female applicants failed because they were stopped due to an excessive heart rate, compared to 3.2 percent of male applicants. With the revised test, 66.9 percent of males and 25.8 percent of females passed. A criterion validation study was conducted for both tests, showing statistically significant correlations between test and job performance. Females rejected for employment sued. What should the court decide? Why?