Name
Student’s Number
Bona Fide Occupational Requirements for Policing.
Number of Pages: 6
Bona Fide Occupational Requirements (BFOR) for Policing.
Introduction
BFOR is defined as an employment condition imposed in the belief that it is essential for the safe, reliable and remarkable performance of the job. The requirement is necessary for the performance to be objective and reasonably important. Companies that wish to impose BFOR are required to note the extremely demanding and representative duties performed in the job then identify the physiological requirements needed for the completion of tasks successfully. For anyone seeking employment for that particular job or those already in employment are expected to exhibit the said trait since they relate to their ability to perform job duties successfully. For instance, individuals employed as drivers need to have acceptable vision and a proper driver’s license while a liquor store employee needs to be above eighteen years of age to do the job.
Bona Fide Occupational Requirements (BFOR) for Policing.
While police operations are primarily desk-bound, the officers are required to engage in extreme workloads for shorter durations during events of critical nature. The critical incidents are normally physically challenging and the failure of the officers to perform during such events could easily endanger themselves, work colleagues and citizens. For these reasons, numerous police agencies have formulated BFORs specifically for fitness. Police officers(incoming and existing) are expected to have and maintain high levels of physical fitness as the latter places them at a higher position to perform (Ziarnik, 1985). The health status of an individual is also considered in the fitness necessity. An individual of low fitness and poor medical status is at a high chance of developing heart ailments (Vance, 1985). The officers are even more vulnerable to suffer heart disease from being shot or a shooting event. In this case, the law enforcement agencies prefer bringing in officers in good shape.
Currently, height weight proportionate tests which are used in replacement of the traditional height requirements used in law enforcement. The traditional height requirements would disqualify many women and members from minority groups from joining the police (Anderson & Plecas, 2008). Nonetheless, discrimination based on race, color, sex, national origin or religion in an employment relationship had been prohibited in the constitution specifically Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 1964. To this effect, the proportionate tests were developed that test the proportionality of height and weight in an individual. The tests are done regularly compared to the superfluous proportionality tests that were done previously after initial employment (Ontario Human Rights Commission, 2006). For instance, the New York State Police Recruitment Center in 2012 provided a chart of height and weight requirements in line with gender. For any individual who did not meet the limits set then they needed to do a fat content test using a skin caliper.
Some law enforcement agencies also have vision requirements though they do vary significantly across departments. For instance the city of Pittsburgh needs police applicants to have a minimal distant vision of 20/70 uncorrected in the stronger eye and a minimal distant vision of 20/200 in the weaker eye uncorrected and can be corrected to at least 20/40 (Chapter 4: Recruitment and Selection of Police Officers, 2013). These measures also consider normal depth, color perception and considerable visual abnormality. However, with the advancement in technology that provides opportunities of better vision enhancements, many law agencies are adopting them rather than have the officers disqualified based on poor vision. Their main concern is that the visual acuity needs are implemented during hiring and enforced only in the extreme cases (Chapter 4: Recruitment and Selection of Police Officers, 2013). Applicants are to sign the documents obligating them to always wear the visual enhancers constantly while on duty and submit request particular visual corrections after a year from testing.
Many police agencies conduct status tests before recruiting new individuals. Police are required to be citizens for the respective regions raising the question whether citizenship is a bona fide requirement (Chapter 4: Recruitment and Selection of Police Officers, 2013). For instance, for one to join the FBI, one should be the United States citizen or of the Northern Mariana Islands. For one to be a Californian police officer, the applicant should be a United States citizen or be a permanent resident alien who according to the United States Citizens and Immigration Service is eligible and applied for citizenship. The question raised here is whether a citizen performs police duties in their respective areas better than a permanent resident who excelled in a test dealing with the United States region and its constitution (Chapter 4: Recruitment and Selection of Police Officers, 2013). The Immigration and Reform Control Act requires employers to be sure that their employees have legal authority to work in the United States. Conversely, suburban law enforcement agencies would simply need its officers to live no more than 20 to 30 minutes from their place of duty.
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (1967) prohibits discrimination of individuals based on age specifically for those between 40 and 70 years. However, there is a BFOR exception to it which states that it is illegal for any employer to act otherwise in the case that age is a BFOR due to the normal operations of the business. Hence the reason why the mandatory retirement age for both the police and wildlife officers is 55 years of age. These jobs entail strenuous duties that are detrimental for older individuals who engage in them. The case “EEOC vs. State of New Jersey (1985)” led to the State of New Jersey declaring age a BFOR as officers above 55 years cannot safely and efficiently perform their duties due to reduced aerobic capacity (Ciccolella, & Boone, 2011). This case also noted that the health and fitness of the police is reasonably needed for them to enforce the law and protect the public.
Argument for the BFOR in Policing
Each individual has the right to equal treatment in respect to employment opportunities without being discriminated against based on particular characteristics. The infringement of this right occurs when a qualification or particular factor exists which excludes, restricts or gives preference to a certain group of people identified as a group that could easily be discriminated against. The exclusion to this rule will occur if the qualification is reasonable and bone fide consider in the circumstances or has been declared in the Act that discrimination based on that ground is not n infringement of the right.
From an individual point of view, I believe that the BFOR is required in the police service department. The police department is focussed on providing safety to the general public. The employer knows exactly what are the duties of a police officer including the extremes that it can go. Therefore, I believe the existence of a BFOR is for the maximal benefit of the society. For instance when a law enforcement agency requires officers who are properly fit with good health, the employer is avoiding having a disability program needed to deal with the injuries that could occur due to unfit and poor health conditions among the officers. The existence of such a program will not only use financial resources but will require the agency to bring in more officers to cover up for those injured. It is not wrong for the employer to want to make monetary savings by bringing in proper personnel and investing in having them constantly improve the good physical health that they are in. job-incurred injuries and disabilities will be reduced tremendously. Additionally, an employer who wants mentally stable individuals is highly likely thinking of one’s capacity to make the right decisions even in the most pressurized conditions. The best interests of the city lies in having physically and mentally fit individuals working in law enforcement.
Defending BFOR based on legal job criteria is an exception that is valid even before ADEA’s prohibition against any discrimination based on age. ADEA Act was formulated to not have employers retain their workers who cannot successfully do their respective duties (Vance, 1985). This is especially when the reduced performance level is related to age. The primary objective of ADEA ids the prohibition of arbitrary age discrimination in employment. To this effect, the police department is entitled to protect itself. ADEA drafters put the ban against arbitrary age discrimination sue to the fact that hiring and recruitment processes are vulnerable to misconceptions and not facts. When an age requirement is based on a fact then arbitrary discrimination will not occur. Hence age is made a bona fide occupational requirement (Vance, 1985). The same way age discrimination will not be considered arbitrary for being based on facts, then the law enforcement agencies have the right to discriminate on other traits as long as they can prove their valid connection to duty performance.
The fact that the police deal with public safety, it is only prudent that a BFOR analysis is done for the respective job. Essentially, the fitness levels required for a public safety officer is not similar to that of a radio dispatcher or a SWAT team member. All the restrictions put in place in police service hiring should be done in accordance with the objective of the BFOR. Although there has been no empirical evidence to prove that the police officer employed at forty is less able to perform the job duties than the forty-year-old police officer already working. It is reasonable to state that the former individual will need more effort and resources to reach the level of knowledge and skill the latter individual has gained. This is in comparison to a younger new recruit.
Nevertheless, it is essential for job applicants to understand that as long as an employer could prove the BFOR listed for the job postings, the criteria is there to stay. Many agencies with legitimate BFOR generally want to achieve standard practices in their line of duty so that when the challenges arise, then the source of challenges is minimized. Nonetheless, for any individual who believes that a BFOR is not valid enough, then they do have a right to make a formal complaint. In case one is not an employee, the employee takes up the case based on the job applicant status to the EEOC or state civil rights offices. Notable, one should not refute the probability of the BFOR being legitimate and the complaint being a wastage of both time and money.
References
Anderson, S.G. & Plecas, B.D. (2008). Phase 1: Task Analysis. Physical Abilities Requirement Assessment (PARE). University College of the Fraser Valley. 33844 King Road, Abbotsford BC V2S 7M9.
Chapter 4: Recruitment and Selection of Police Officers. (2013). Retrieved from https://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/53256_ch_4.pdf
Ciccolella, M. E., & Boone, T. (2011). Legal Aspects of Aerobic Capacity: Objective Evidence of the Ability to Work Part I: Age as a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (BFOQ). Professionalization of Exercise Physiology, 14(8), 1.
Ontario Human Rights Commission. (2006). Policy on Height and Weight Requirements. Ontario Human Rights Commission. Retrieved from http://www.ohrc.on.ca/sites/default/files/attachments/Policy_on_height_and_weight_requirements.pdf
Vance, K. K. (1985). Fitness or Age as an Occupational Qualification for Protective Service Workers: A Choice between Bona Fide Criterion or Arbitrary Discrimination. Marq. L. Rev., 69, 422.
Ziarnik, R. J. (1985). A Police Chief Comments: Fitness as a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification at Any Age. Marq. L. Rev., 69, 447.
