There is no doubt that the rules in force at the time of the trial were highly discriminatory against women. They set higher standards of education and visual acuity for women than for men. However, as we have already mentioned, these differences have been eliminated, and the only question we face is whether the height and weight limit of 5 feet 7 inches and 135 pounds, although it applies equally to men and women, actually discriminates against women. It is quite true that statistics from 1966 show that 80% of women do not reach this height limit, while a similar percentage of men respect it. But these statistics cover the 18-70 age group. It seems that members of the current generation are taller than their parents. The relevant age group here is 21-32, the age limit for admission to the police. It may be that a much smaller disparity is demonstrated in this group, and the decision in this case should not exclude evidence on this issue in another lawsuit under different settlements. Before being hired as a certified law enforcement officer in North Carolina, individuals transferred out of state must successfully complete the Employment Agency`s firearms training and qualification program. At a minimum, they must also complete the legal service and all other identified training courses of the Commission-certified Basic Law Enforcement Training Course (BLET) and pass the BLET State Examination within their 12-month probationary period. An official holding a probationary certificate cannot move from one law enforcement agency to another. The probationary period must be completed in full at the same position. If an official terminates the employment relationship with an agency before the end of his or her year, he or she must begin a new probationary period in the new agency.

The Smith court was unable to find rational support for the height and weight requirements for Cleveland police officers from the available evidence, concluding that the requirements were based solely on the stereotype of the tall police officer. (363 F.Supp. at p. 1144.) The Court also found that it could not find any other authority that had established a rational connection between the size requirements for police officers and the activity they were engaged in. [5] We agree that the height and weight requirements for the patrol officer position as a discriminatory classification need to be reviewed. It is not necessary to conclude that these standards were adopted with a discriminatory purpose; It is enough for statistics to show that the standards imposed exclude practically all women. (State Div. of Hum. Rts. v. New York City Dept. of P.

& R. (1971) supra, 38 App.Div.2d 25 [326 N.Y.S.2d 640]; Schmidt v. City of East Cleveland, op. cit. cit., 363 F. Supp. 1131, 1136-1137.) Statistics show that more than 80% of all American women are excluded by a height restriction of 5 feet 7 inches and 135 pounds. (U.S.

Bureau of Census statistical summary (1966).) The only question we ask ourselves, therefore, is whether the height and weight requirement unduly discriminates against women as a category [37 App.3d 961]. The applicant chose an appropriate procedural means to answer this question because mandamus „is an appropriate remedy for enforcing a civil right“. (Wrather-Alvarez etc., Inc. v. Hewicker, 147 Cal. App. 2d 509, 511 [305 P.2d 236].) The applicant referred two other cases to the Court in which it was found that the employer had not established a rational connection between the size requirements and the requirements for jobs similar to those of a police officer. In the state division of Hum. Rts.

v. New York City Division of P. & R. (1971) 38 App.Div.2d 25 [326 N.Y.S.2d 640], height requirements (5 feet 7 inches, 135 pounds) were not sufficiently related to the performance of lifeguard duties. In Shirley Long, the United States Public Service Commission Appeals and Review Board (November 13, 1972) found that the height requirements (proportional weight of 5 feet 8 inches) were not sufficiently related to the performance of the duties of a park police officer in the National Park Service. Please note that the standards listed below are the minimum requirements for employment in the field of law enforcement prescribed by the Commission. Individual organizations may demand higher standards. Respondents cite Castro v. Beecher (D.Mass. 1971) 334 F. Supp.

930, where the Tribunal emphasized by way of dictum that „it is probable that, although height is not determinative of fitness to be a police officer, it is not determinative of fitness to be a police officer, any more than fitness to be an athlete or a general, It is significantly related to the ability to be a police officer, since it is not substantially related to the activity of a judge or scientist. A policeman of medium height or more may not be more effective than a small one in convincing children, drunkards, rioters, and stubborn individuals to obey immediately, he may not be physically stronger, and [37 Cal. App.3d 964], it may not even look more impressive in a police parade. But apparently, the Boston City Council thought so, and its conclusion finds support in the laws, regulations, and customs that govern many police forces. (334 F.Supp. at p. 940.) This is clearly a formulation of an inappropriate standard that was approved by the Court of Review in Castro v. Beecher, 459 F.2d 725, 734. In that case, the court refused to consider the size requirement because it had not been shown to discriminate against the group of complainants, namely persons with Spanish surnames. However, the court noted that it was not clear whether even the survival of a minimum height for the new Boston police commissioner had denied mechanical compliance with a minimum minimum size, and the Public Service Commission had taken a similar position. Significantly, the Court noted that to justify a size discriminatory restriction, the employer would have to prove that it was „essentially related to the work performed.“ (459 F.2d at p. 732.) In addition, the abolition of height and weight restrictions must eliminate the same requirement as for men, in accordance with the same principle of equal treatment that requires it.

One factor for which there is no evidence or discussion here is public trust. The police`s job is not only to protect the public, but also to convey their confidence that they will be protected – an increasingly difficult task in these times of rising crime rates. Certain non-discriminatory minimum size requirements are perfectly acceptable and, to the extent that the opinion in this case can be considered to lift all these restrictions, we cannot agree with them. Every law enforcement officer employed by a North Carolina agency must: What are the minimum requirements for police recruits? For Police Recruit, the entry-level position for the San Diego Police Department; Candidates must be at least 20 years old on the day of the written examination. You must be a U.S. citizen or a permanent resident alien with an application for U.S. citizenship; and you must have at least a high school diploma from a U.S. high school or a G.E.D. A law enforcement officer with general certification can move from one law enforcement agency in North Carolina to another law enforcement agency in the state as long as he or she has less than 12 months of service.

The trial court found that the size requirement was reasonable and necessary for the normal operation of the duties of a police patrol officer. This conclusion is not supported by the type of evidence that must justify discriminatory treatment. The respondents attempted to justify the size requirements solely on the basis that physical force was required for the duties of a patrol officer; Footnote 3 particularly in the restraint of enemies and combatants during arrest or escape, in the lifting and transport of persons, and in pulling people from vehicle wrecks. It has not been disputed that physical force is related to the performance of these tasks. It is only controversial that a person must be 5 feet 7 inches tall and weigh 135 pounds to perform these tasks [37 Cal.3d 965]. Candidates for the patroller position are tested for strength, mobility, endurance, endurance and flexibility before being accepted. No explanation was given as to why a person under 5 feet 7 inches who passed the physical tests did not have the strength to perform the duties of a patrol officer. James M. Newman, Director of Human Resources, testified that, in his opinion, essentially all people whose size was not required could not work effectively. He had not conducted any studies to confirm his view that the smaller the officer, the less adequately he worked. He could not recall any specific cases to support his opinion. No testing was done to determine how well people under 5 feet 7 inches could work.

He had never observed women performing tasks similar to those of patrollers and knew of any testing of women.