Would men separated for failing a military fitness test have a case for discrimination since women did not have to meet the same standard?

2016-01-14T08:33:45-05:00

I think those who were separated have grounds for a class action discrimination lawsuit under the equal protection clause. I've often wondered why I have never heard of one before, but now that women have been granted the added benefit of the "opportunity" in combat arms ground units without the requisite of meeting higher standards in other support branches (which nevertheless are still "the" standard), I think it only bolsters their case.

One of four things will most likely happen. 1. Women meet the male standards across the board. 2. Standards are lowered to the female standards. 3. A new universal standard somewhere between the male and female standards are established. 4. Job-specific standards are established based on branch/MOS which would require a large number of standards across the four/five military services.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 14 at 2016 8:38 AM

2016-01-14T08:38:01-05:00

An interesting idea although I am sure someone who was separated for APFT and/or weight issues has consulted a lawyer before and this was brought up.

Anyone else know?

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 14 at 2016 8:46 AM

2016-01-14T08:46:44-05:00

MAJ Bill Darling Definitely not looking for #2. #4 would lower standards for some MOS' and create unfit sections of the Army.

Response by CPL(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 14 at 2016 8:50 AM

2016-01-14T08:50:36-05:00

I believe that the way the law works on this one is that the service member cannot file the lawsuit but the spouse or children can due to not being subject to ucmj yet being subjected to its effects. The depravity based on this discrimination should be abolished. One team one fight except for _______ is hypocritical. The only time women fall under a protected different class is when they're pregnant. Otherwise, we should all be at the same pt minimum. Wars aren't won with genitals, so why should they be the measure that makes the difference in the fitness of our personnel? It shouldn't, especially if women have proven themselves in the ranger training.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 14 at 2016 8:53 AM

2016-01-14T08:53:07-05:00

I think job specific standards would be ridiculous. Lowering the standards to the female standards is ridiculous. Having women meet the male standards is ridiculous. The Army needs to 100% hit the reset button on standards and physical fitness test. It's time for change. They have changed almost everything else, so why not? I don't think they will change anything anytime soon, I'll probably be retired by the time they do.

Response by SSG Audwin Scott made Jan 14 at 2016 9:05 AM

2016-01-14T09:05:56-05:00

I don't think any will admit it if they did.

Response by MSgt Michael Smith made Jan 14 at 2016 9:46 AM

2016-01-14T09:46:19-05:00

Men and women are different physically, so they should have different standards for physical fitness. This in no way means that they should not be able to serve in combat arms positions if they qualify. I am so sick of these types of subversive physical fitness standards questions. They are meaningless and inaccurate. Who has had to do pushups or situps to defeat the enemy. Your concern should be whether women can effectively accomplish the mission, and that answer has never been anything but yes.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 14 at 2016 9:46 AM

2016-01-14T09:46:53-05:00

I think the whole thing is ridiculous. It's not like the current standards are that high anyway. To be perfectly honest, I do a bare minimum of PT and I've never had a problem passing the APFT. You know what the standards are, you know when you are going to be tested, put in the effort to ensure you pass.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 14 at 2016 9:50 AM

2016-01-14T09:50:47-05:00

ummm, no.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jan 14 at 2016 10:44 AM

2016-01-14T10:44:08-05:00

1) There are no "Male" or "Female" standards. There are Physiological (Physical Fitness) Tests. Let's stop using "Standards" incorrectly.

2) The Physical Fitness Test is a "bad metric" for ALL Fields & MOSs, because it relies on using body weight of the individual. A 135lb person regardless of gender is going to have a hard time humping a 50lb ruck, because they have less muscle MASS than a 200lb person. The score is not directly indicative of Combat Prowess. It may assist, but trying to directly equate is a fool's gambit.

3) Again, "standards" is the wrong word, however there cannot be a universal "standard" because Males & Females are "built" differently. To draw a parallel, you cannot expect a rifle to perform the same as a pistol or vice versa, nor can you score them the same.

4) This is where the use of "Standard" is correct. Job Specific Standard can be applied, however they must be OBJECTIVE, vice SUBJECTIVE in nature. The PFT is a SUBJECTIVE measure of HEALTH (Physiology), as opposed to an Objective Measure of CAPABILITY like the ability to Move under load in X time (Timed Ruck March) or Score Marksman/Sharpshooter/Expert at the Range.

So, if a Soldier fails to meet the MINIMUM HEALTH REQUIREMENTS (Normalized Score on PFT), tehy would not be discriminated against, because the "Standard" is the SCORE. The SCORE requirements are the SAME based on CLASS (Age), and gender is irrelevant. The specific portion of the test is normalized to account of Physiological Differences between gender, because scientifically males and females are different as classes. You cannot measure females on the same HEALTH scale as males. This isn't a "standards" issue. It is a health (science) issue, which most people just don't understand.

Response by SrA Edward Vong made Jan 14 at 2016 12:01 PM

2016-01-14T12:01:32-05:00

I believe lowering the men's standards to some degree and raising the women's standards to equally match the men's would be a good compromise. Of course we all need to be "battle ready", however doing a certain number of push ups, sit ups, and running a few laps does not make an individual battle ready, just somewhat in shape in accordance to standards.

There are of course mission essential readiness. I remember before testing for a certain career field I had to meet some minimum fitness requirements (bench pressing a certain weight).

Response by MAJ Bill Darling made Jan 14 at 2016 1:41 PM

2016-01-14T13:41:32-05:00

Thanks so much for the responses so far. To a person they are well-structured, insightful, and civil. I may not agree with each one but I nevertheless appreciate you taking the time to reply and force me to consider the matter that much more. Please keep them coming. Also looking for the input of JAGs and civilian attorneys.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 14 at 2016 2:04 PM

2016-01-14T14:04:15-05:00

Would this same question apply to 18 year old male soldiers who failed a PT test with a result that a 40 year old male soldier would have passed with? The age group scores are based upon the same principle as the gender groups. That there are physiological differences between a group of 18 yo males and 40 yo males, and so passing scores are normed to the performance of that age cohort, not a constant standard. So would 18 yo soldiers have a class action suit against the Army because older soldiers of the same sex don't have to achieve the same results as younger soldiers in order to stay in the Army?

Response by MSgt Michelle Mondia made Jan 14 at 2016 2:08 PM

2016-01-14T14:08:58-05:00

There should be one equally challenging yet attainable standard. If your job requires a higher tempo of fitness then elevate the standard based on that. But the two genders having separate standards is antiquated.

Response by MSgt Michelle Mondia made Jan 14 at 2016 2:09 PM

2016-01-14T14:09:23-05:00

...and yes he should be able to argue this case.

Response by SGT S Sharpless made Jan 14 at 2016 2:20 PM

2016-01-14T14:20:00-05:00

It would only be discrimination if women weren't kicked out for the same reasons that men were.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 14 at 2016 2:27 PM

2016-01-14T14:27:28-05:00

I would love to have to do 10 push ups, 10 situps and 22 minutes for my 2 mile run.

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Jan 15 at 2016 7:50 AM

2016-01-15T07:50:18-05:00

Not in the Marine Corps I joined almost 37 years ago. I can't speak to what has happened to our military today; not all the changes have been positive.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 15 at 2016 12:26 PM

2016-01-15T12:26:38-05:00

So many things in the military does to me seem to violate the equal protection clause and a host of related U.S. laws. You address below the question of age discrimination on the APFT (if having female standards is discrimination, then having age standards is, too).

Now, let's take your argument to its logical conclusion. You make an argument based on equal treatment of all, using the equal protection clause. Thus, wouldn't single folks have a equal protection and rights as compared to married folks (which, for purposes of total compensation and treatment is clearly not the case in the military)? Is it legal for the Army to use official DA Photos in promotion processes (as photos indicate gender and ethnicity, shouldn't they be excluded from such processes to ensure race and gender aren't a factor?)? Etc, etc.

Response by SGT John Rauch made Jan 15 at 2016 1:23 PM

2016-01-15T13:23:46-05:00

WTF? legally I guess i would be a possibility, but morally, ethically I say no. not to mention the amount of shame they should already feel. no need to highlight it.

Response by SSgt Paul Esquibel made Jan 16 at 2016 1:43 PM

2016-01-16T13:43:03-05:00

To answer your question, yes men would possibly have a case but it would have to be proven that women were allowed a lower standard to their male counterparts to achieve the same position. I'm not familiar with the other branches of standards but within the AF if you could prove that all males applying to be a Combat Controller/PJ had to achieve one standard based off of the scientific proven ability for their age vs women were given a lower standard even though a majority could pass the male standard then you have grounds to claim discrimination in that those women can achieve the standard, but it would be very difficult to prove as well as needing a huge support from the female population that is willing to accept that male standard to apply to all.

Response by PO1 Kerry French made Mar 4 at 2017 11:37 PM

2017-03-04T23:37:29-05:00

simple fix... make women meet the lowest male standard like I did my whole 20 years (minus my one pregnancy on shore duty)