On July 29, 2014, the United States Department of Justice, on behalf of women seeking entry-level Pennsylvania state trooper positions, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania State Police. The plaintiff alleged that since 2003, the State Police's practice of requiring applicants to pass a physical-fitness test in order to be considered for an entry-level trooper positions has had a disparate impact on the hiring of women, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They sought injunctive relief to stop the defendant's discriminatory hiring practices.

Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that since 2003 the Pennsylvania State Police have used two similar physical fitness tests as part of the application to become a state trooper that are not necessary for the performance of the job. They claimed that between 2003 and 2012, female applicants passed the test at 80% of the rate that male applicants passed, a statistically significant difference, and thus the tests had a disparate impact on the hiring of women.

On November 10, 2014, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for lack of jurisdiction. The court (Judge Sylvia Rambo) denied the motion finding that the court had jurisdiction and that the United States had sufficiently stated a claim. 110 F.Supp.3d 544.

Beginning in May 2014, the parties engaged in discovery. On August 19, 2016, both the plaintiff and defendant filed motions for partial summary judgment. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgement, finding that the United States had satisfied its burden in proving a prima facie case of disparate impact discrimination and that there was no genuine dispute of a material fact for that analysis. 2017 WL 4354917. Finding that there was still a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the defendant's actions were defensible under a business necessity defense, the court denied the defendant's motion.

The parties engaged in several discovery disputes between 2016 and 2018. On April 4, 2018, the parties jointly submitted a motion to stay the litigation for 90 days while the parties engaged in voluntary mediation before a federal magistrate judge. It does not appear that the mediation was successful. As of April 6, 2020, the case is ongoing.

Benjamin St. Pierre - 10/23/2014
Sean Mulloy - 03/21/2018
Hope Brinn - 04/06/2020


compress summary