Reference no: EM133575809

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 thirty- to seventy-pound weights for specified durations to assess strength), a step test (stepping up and down on an eleven-inch bench for six minutes), and a visual inspection of "gross body coordination." Additionally, applicants' heart rates were 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 forty pounds). 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. Of female applicants, 24 percent failed because they were stopped because of an excessive heart rate, compared to 3.2 percent of male applicants. With the revised test, 66.9 percent of males passed 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?