Hardy

Plaintiff appeals from judgment denying petition for writ of mandate. Challenging City of Oakland’s requirement that police officer applicants be able to scale a six-foot wall, she claims the disproportionate rejection of females constitutes sex discrimination denying equal protection and violating the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The trial court upheld the requirement as reasonably related to the duties of Oakland police officers. We affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff similarly challenged in 1971 the reasonableness of height and weight requirements for becoming Oakland police officers. (Hardy v. Stumpf (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 958 [ 112 Cal.Rptr. 739 ].) Those requirements were struck down in that case because the evidence failed to *6 demonstrate they were reasonably related to actual job performance. In attempting to comply with standards suggested by the Court of Appeal, Oakland devised a new physical performance test. A job analysis survey of Oakland police officers determined their duties include an ability to run, lift or drag objects and scale walls. The new test requires the performance of these and other tasks, emphasizing agility rather than strength.

The new test requires…

I dissent.

As the United States Supreme Court has pointed out, “Nothing in the [Civil Rights] Act precludes the use of testing or measuring procedures; obviously they are useful.” (Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971) 401 U.S. 424, 436 [ 28 L.Ed.2d 158, 167 , 91 S.Ct. 849 ].) On its face, defendants’ six-foot wall test appears to be a reasonable testing procedure useful in *12 measuring ability to respond to an emergency situation. And, as the majority conclude, it is difficult to imagine a more accurate way of testing ability to scale a six-foot wall than to scale one.

Nevertheless, while Congress clearly did not intend by title VII of the Civil Rights Act-to bar all employment tests, title VII does forbid the use of employment tests that are discriminatory in effect unless the employer meets “the burden of showing that any given requirement [has] a manifest relationship to the employment in question.” (Griggs v. Duke Power Co., supra, 401 U.S. at p. 432 [ 28 L.Ed.2d at p. 165 ].) This burden arises only after the complaining party has made out a prima facie case of discrimination, that is, has shown that the test in question selects applicants for hire in a racial or sexual pattern…

Plaintiff appeals from judgment denying petition for writ of mandate. Challenging City of Oakland's requirement that police officer applicants be able to scale a six-foot wall, she claims the disproportionate rejection of females constitutes sex discrimination denying equal protection and violating the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The trial court upheld the requirement as reasonably related to the duties of Oakland police officers. We affirm the judgment.

Plaintiff similarly challenged in 1971 the reasonableness of height and weight requirements for becoming Oakland police officers. ( Hardy v. Stumpf (1974) 37 Cal. App.3d 958 [ 112 Cal. Rptr. 739 ].) Those requirements were struck down in that case because the evidence failed to demonstrate they were reasonably related to actual job performance. In attempting to comply with standards suggested by the Court of Appeal, Oakland devised a new physical performance test. A job analysis survey of Oakland police officers determined their duties include an ability to run, lift or drag objects and scale walls. The new test requires the performance of these and other tasks, emphasizing agility rather than strength.

The new…