Porkpie has a point that other women have passed and serve.

The point of contention would be in proving that the ability to run at a certain speed significantly affects a firefighter's effectiveness.

The FDNY are concerned that a jury, none of whom are likely to have experience in what is involved in Fire & Rescue, will find that their requirements are discriminatory against women, since they are likely not to understand what kinds of physical requirements are needed to enact the procedures that have been developed over centuries to both help the public as well as limit the risks undertaken by the firefighters.

Juries in the USA are tricky to deal with at the best of times.

Though not common, there are numerous cases where juries have given some bizarre and obviously prejudiced decisions.

The Plaintiff, the woman who might sue, would likely suggest that the requirements are of a nature that specifically make it difficult for women to pass in order to prevent them from joining what has traditionally been a nearly exclusively male profession.

If the jury is convinced of this, not only would the FDNY be subject to this lawsuit and loss of money, but they would be more likely to be sued due to their being a precedent.

Also, the FDNY would likely lose the ability to determine for it's self the standards and practices for training it's members so as to reduce their own risk in the performance of their jobs.

In this kind of civil suit, opinions and feelings can count as much as evidence and facts, and no reasonable person wants to take that kind of risk when lives would be a stake.

But the Plaintiff may perceive the situation differently.

That's why our laws are set up as they are. We hope.

In all seriousness isn't it an endurance test more than a speed one? It's only an 8 minute mile (if you average out 3 half miles at 4 minutes each). That's wouldn't indicate speed (as in sprinting)

I believe women who can meet the standards should have the chance to work the job, but no man would be given 7 tries. That's crap she's being catered to so much. The standards are there for a reason. If she can't meet them so be it. She'll need to find another occupation like any man would.

What is bizarre to me is while I have no clue what the other requirements are I (past my mid 40s) could pass the one she can't-running 1.5 miles in 12 minutes. I'd never take it 6 or 7 times if I was going to fail it. If I couldn't do the run I'd train and if I accomplished the time once I trained I'd go back and pass it the second time.

She is 34 and therefore too old to start in a job where fitness/physical strength is needed, i couldn't be bothered to read the dm. But I read she failed 6 times in 6 months, maybe she should take a hint and piss off.

Given that pencil-and-paper tests are changed to make it easier for African-Americans and Latinos to be promoted, why shouldn't the fitness tests be changed to make it easier for women to join?

I'd personally want someone with the strength and endurance to do the job to be hired since it effects the public safety. If it's not a woman so be it.

But what about having people with the mental skills to do the job in leadership positions? That affects public safety as well. Why change the standard in one case but not the other?

I think any position should only go to those capable of handling it.

This is supposedly the motive for giving her a seventh chance:

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/03/18/98-million-settlement-reached-in-fdny-discrimination-case/

The city paid $98 million and created a director position to oversee diversity.

But why take 7 chances? I mean you either can do the mile and a half in 12 minutes or better or you can't. Train if you want it. Go back when and if you make the time. It really shouldn't be a big mystery if you will pass or fail.

Seems if it was a legit fear of a lawsuit they'd wave the requirement.

I agree. However, when was the last time a firefighter had to run 1.5 miles in execution of job duties? Probably never. Questions like that are used to create the appearance that each qualification is arbitrary, irrelevant, and unfair.

In truth, smarter and more fit are always better, but some will argue that each criterion or test question is unfair.

I wonder if, instead of arbitrary cut-offs for passing grades, they should take the number of top performers, in order of performance? That would mean that some who technically passed would still not get jobs. But they should want the best.

They'll never have to literally do that on the job. I think the point is it's more a physical fitness test to measure endurance. But I could see it being changed to match something that may come up on the job more closely.

Still, if I can do (pushing 50 and all with not too much athletic talent) it doesn't seem like a tough requirement. I certainly would want a fire fighter to be able to match my endurance. Doesn't seem to be going too far in terms of what the department asks.

They need some criteria for fitness, near the extreme of what the job requires, but any given criterion can be challenged as arbitrary.

The one they have is as good as any, but the OP suggests it will be compromised in some way to ensure this lady passes her 7th attempt. I suspect the new director of diversity had a role in this.

Diversity should be achieved, but not at the expense of job performance.

But you don't need to change that requirement to get women into the Department. Plenty wouldn't find that a challenge at all.

Well, this particular one could not. And there were only five women in her graduating class.