The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority adopted a physical fitness test to use in the hiring of transit officers. The test included a component in which candidates had to complete a 1.5 mile run in no more than 12 minutes. The test was created by a consulting physician who determined that while officers would not have to undertake such a run in course of their duties, the run nonetheless was an accurate measure of the aerobic capacity required to perform the job. Candidates who did not complete the run in the allotted time were excluded from any further consideration. Female candidates who were unable to successfully complete the run and denied employment challenged the test as discriminatory.

1.) What was the legal issue in this case? What did the court decide? 

2.) What is the evidence of discriminatory effects in this case?

3.) What distinction is the court drawing between job relatedness and business necessity? What is the evidence that SEPTA’s aerobic capacity test is both job related and consistent with business necessity?

4.) Because physical fitness is clearly related to doing the job of transit officer, why shouldn’t SEPTA be free to set high standards and hire only the most physically fit?