United States v. City of Erie, 2005: Court strikes down physical ability test for police officer

Add this course to my shopping cart

Reference Title: United States v. City of Erie, PA (U.S. District Court, 12/13/2005)
Author: U.S. District Court
Publication Type: Legal (Court Decision)
Publication Date: 2005
Course Level: Advanced
Credits: 4
Price: $40.00
About This Course: This detailed court decision explains why the City of Erie failed to meet its burden of proof under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act in using a physical ability test to hire police officers.
  1. Overview of this CE Home-Study Program
  2. Information About the Course
    1. Educational Objectives
    2. Target Audience
    3. Schedule
    4. Cost and Refund/Cancellation Policy
    5. Author Credentials
    6. Number of CE Credits Offered
    7. Location and Format
    8. Detailed Description of Program Material
  3. Conflict of Interest Statement

1. Overview of this CE program (top)

This home study course entails the independent study of the court opinion regarding United States v. City of Erie, PA (U.S. District Court, 12/13/2005), followed by the completion of a multiple-choice test on-line. Participants who receive a passing grade of 75% or higher on the test will receive 4 CE credits. Failing participants may retake the test as often as they wish at no additional charge, and receive CE credit when they do pass.

A copy of the court opinion needed for this course is available to download for free at the IPMAAC web site.

More detailed information on the content of this article is given in section 2h below.

APR Testing Services is approved by the American Psychological Association to sponsor continuing education for psychologists. APR Testing Services maintains responsibility for this program and its content.

2.a Educational Objectives (top)

Upon completion of this home study program, the participant will be able to:

  1. Demonstrate an understanding of the development and standardization of the physical ability test (PAT) used by the Erie police department.
  2. Describe the expert opinions offered by both sides regarding the reliability and validity of the PAT.
  3. Explain the court's reasoning and findings.

2.b Target Audience (top)

This CE program is intended for psychologists who hold a doctoral degree. The course may be taken by other interested professionals (e.g.,senior human resource executives and consultants; upper-level managers).

2.c Schedule (top)

Access to program registration and post-test is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

2.d Cost and Refund/Cancellation Policy (top)

The fee for this home-study program is $40, which is $10 per CE credit. The fee is fully refundable for 60 days or until the post-test is taken, whichever comes first.

A copy of the court opinion needed for this course is available to download for free at the IPMAAC web site.

2.e Author Credentials (top)

This is a memorandum opinion and order released by the U.S. District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania regarding U.S. v. City of Erie (12/13/2005).

2.f Number of CE Credits Offered (top)

Participants who complete this course by taking and passing the multiple-choice test will receive 4 CE credits.

2.g Location and Format (top)

This activity requires independent home-based study of a court opinion (U.S. v. City of Erie). Following completion of the reading material, participants complete an Internet-based multiple-choice post-test on its content.

2.h Detailed Description of Program Material (top)

Publication citation:

United States v. City of Erie, Pennsylvania, Civil Action No. 04-4 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 13, 2005).

From IPMAAC.com:

The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania found that the City of Erie, Pennsylvania violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by using a physical ability test that eliminated the vast majority of female applicants for police officer positions in the Erie Bureau of Police. The judge relied heavily on the precedent set in the Lanning v. SEPTA cases and determined that the city had failed to show that the test was job-related and consistent with business necessity.

3. Conflict of Interest Statement (top)

APR Testing Services (APR) has no known conflict of interest with respect to this CE program. APR has not received any commercial support for this CE program.