NCJ Number
45961
Journal
LEGAL POINTS Issue: 77 Dated: (1977)
Date Published
1977
Length
4 pages
Annotation
LEGAL PROBLEMS PERTAINING TO POLICE PHYSICAL FITNESS REQUIREMENTS, ESPECIALLY THOSE RELATED TO SPECIFIC TRAITS OR DISABILITIES ARE EXAMINED. RELATED PROMOTION, DISCIPLINARY, AND DISABILITY POLICIES ARE ALSO DISCUSSED.
Abstract
THE UNUSUAL PHYSICAL DEMANDS OF POLICE WORK PROVIDE A DEGREE OF JUSTIFICATION FOR CERTAIN PHYSICAL FITNESS REGULATIONS, AND IN GENERAL THE LAW AND THE COURTS HAVE AGREED WITH THE NEED FOR SUCH STANDARDS. WHEN LITIGATION HAS BEEN BROUGHT AGAINST SUCH REQUIREMENTS ON THE GOUNDS THAT THEY DISCRIMINATE AGAINST WOMEN OR MINORITY GROUPS, THE CASES HAVE USUALLY BEEN DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT'S RELEVANCE TO THE ABILITY TO PERFORM POLICE WORK PROPERLY. SEVERAL STATES HAVE LAWS MANDATING HIRING AND PROMOTION PREFERENCES FOR VETERANS; WHILE THESE COULD CONFLICT WITH POLICE REQUIREMENTS, NO SUCH CASES HAVE BEEN REPORTED YET. BOTH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND SEVERAL STATES HAVE PASSED LAWS PROHIBITING EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED, HOWEVER, IN OCCUPATIONS ENTAILING CONSIDERABLE PHYSICAL STRESS OR WHERE THE WELL-BEING OR OTHERS MAY BE JEOPARDIZED, FREEDOM FROM PHYSICAL HANDICAP MAY BE A JUSTIFIABLE EMPLOYMENT REQUIREMENT. MOST STATES NOW HAVE MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM AGE REQUIREMENTS FOR HIRING, AND A MANDATORY RETIREMENT AGE FOR POLICE OFFICERS IS USUALLY PROVIDED. IN MASSACHUSETTES VERSUS MURGIA, THE COMPLAINANT FILED SUIT ON THE GROUNDS THAT RETIREMENT AT AGE 50 DENIED HIM EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW. IN THIS CASE THE COURT HELD THAT MANDATORY RETIREMENT WAS A RATIONAL ATTEMPT TO ACHIEVE THE STATE'S GOAL OF PROTECTING THE PUBLIC BY ASSURING THE PHYSICAL PREPAREDNESS OF ITS OFFICERS. THE CASE, HOWEVER, DID NOT DECIDE WHETHER MANDATORY RETIREMENT VIOLATED THE AGE DECIDE WHETHER MANDATORY RETIREMENT VIOLATED THE AGE DISCRIMINATION IN EMPLOYMENT ACT OF 1967 WHICH STATES THAT THE EMPLOYER MUST ESTABLISH THAT AGE IS A BONA FIDE OCCUPATINAL QUALIFICATION. RESULTS OF CASES IN OTHER SAFETY-ORIENTED PROFESSIONS HAVE NOT BEEN ENTIRELY CONSISTENT. EXCESSIVE WEIGHT HAS BEEN A BASIS FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION ON THE GROUNDS THAT DISREGARD OF WEIGHT REQUIREMENTS CONSTITUTES INSUBORDINATION AND INCREASES THE RISK OF HEART DISEASE AND HYPERTENSION WHICH MAY MAKE THE DEPARTMENT LIABLE FOR DISABILITY BENEFITS. HOWEVER, WHEN AN OFFICER'S RESIGNATION IS SOUGHT AND TENDERED BECAUSE OF BEING OVERWEIGHT, IT MAY BE ARGUED THAT JOB STRESS-RELATED OVEREATING IS A DISABILITY INCURRED IN THE LINE OF DUTY. A UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DECISIONS HAS FOUND THAT THERE IS NO RATIONAL JUSTIFICATION FOR MINIMUM WEIGHT REQUIREMENTS WHICH DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE HIRING OF WOMEN. ALCOHOLISM MAY PROVIDE GROUNDS FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION AND/OR DISABILITY BENEFITS. NOTES AND REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED. FOR PART TWO, SEE NCJ 45962. (JAP)