|
Post by hadituptoHERE on May 21, 2014 1:24:11 GMT -5
Got this from The Texas Justice Dot Org website. Interesting uh?
April 22, 2013 3:47 PM By Michelle Keahey, East Texas Bureau
TYLER – A 72-year-old woman has sued the Texas Department of Criminal Justice claiming she was terminated after 19 years of employment because she failed an agility test.
Viola Burchfield filed suit against TDCJ on April 17 in the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division.
Burchfield is a female employee of the defendant’s and claims she is a victim of gender discrimination employment policies and practices.
The 72-year-old woman, who was employed by the defendant for nearly 19 years, was required to perform a physical agility test. The test involved climbing a ladder, running around the gym in under 2 ½ minutes and sit-ups. When Burchfield did not pass the entire physical agility test, she was terminated, according to the suit.
She claims that the test was not job related, nor consistent with business necessity. According to the lawsuit, her job duties were not very active and included paper work, phone calls and observations of visits.
The defendant is also accused of violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
The plaintiff is asking for an award of damages for back and front pay, interest, liquidated damages, mental distress, emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, punitive damages, attorney’s fees and court costs.
Burchfield is represented by Tyler attorney Bob Whitehurst. A jury trial is requested.
U.S. District Judge Michael H. Schneider is assigned to the case.
Case No. 6:13-cv-00331
|
|
|
Post by accussedsnitchgp11 on May 21, 2014 23:01:29 GMT -5
Will be interesting to see the Outcome of the Trial...and very Fast I hope.
|
|
|
Post by mley1 on May 22, 2014 7:12:05 GMT -5
Well, I'm still baffled as to why she didn't take a retirement. She met the rule of 80, and would not have incurred any penalties. Plus, she is eligible for social security. She would have been, and should have been, bringing in two checks, and NOT have to work. If she enjoys working that's wonderful. Go work somewhere that is not so physically demanding. I know that sounds a bit cold hearted. But, it's something that bothers me. It especially bothers me because of what I've been through with my accident, and the recovery, and all the work I've had to put in so that I can pass the PAT. Hell, I still wear a brace on one knee so I can walk without hurting. God bless our elderly employee's. But, if you can't pass a very SIMPLE and EASY PAT test you don't need to be a correctional officer, period. TDCJ should have given her the option of retiring gracefully, and she should have taken it.
Flame suite on.
|
|
|
Post by bobothebeaten on May 22, 2014 10:30:06 GMT -5
Well, I'm still baffled as to why she didn't take a retirement. She met the rule of 80, and would not have incurred any penalties. Plus, she is eligible for social security. She would have been, and should have been, bringing in two checks, and NOT have to work. If she enjoys working that's wonderful. Go work somewhere that is not so physically demanding. I know that sounds a bit cold hearted. But, it's something that bothers me. It especially bothers me because of what I've been through with my accident, and the recovery, and all the work I've had to put in so that I can pass the PAT. Hell, I still wear a brace on one knee so I can walk without hurting. God bless our elderly employee's. But, if you can't pass a very SIMPLE and EASY PAT test you don't need to be a correctional officer, period. TDCJ should have given her the option of retiring gracefully, and she should have taken it. Flame suite on. She's about to hit the lottery. She'll get to retire and still get a big check. When this agency does stuff they need to do it correctly.
|
|
|
Post by bobothebeaten on May 22, 2014 11:23:25 GMT -5
Well, I'm still baffled as to why she didn't take a retirement. She met the rule of 80, and would not have incurred any penalties. Plus, she is eligible for social security. She would have been, and should have been, bringing in two checks, and NOT have to work. If she enjoys working that's wonderful. Go work somewhere that is not so physically demanding. I know that sounds a bit cold hearted. But, it's something that bothers me. It especially bothers me because of what I've been through with my accident, and the recovery, and all the work I've had to put in so that I can pass the PAT. Hell, I still wear a brace on one knee so I can walk without hurting. God bless our elderly employee's. But, if you can't pass a very SIMPLE and EASY PAT test you don't need to be a correctional officer, period. TDCJ should have given her the option of retiring gracefully, and she should have taken it. Flame suite on. She might have filed her complaint under the legal theory "CONTRUCTIVE RESIGNATION". •Constructive discharge. Most states allow employees to collect unemployment if their work situation had grown so difficult that they were essentially forced to quit (for example, if you feel that quitting is the only option because of constant sexual harassment, dangerous working conditions that your employer refuses to remedy, or a manager's demands that you commit an illegal act). If a reasonable person in that situation would have found the working conditions intolerable, quitting most likely won't make you ineligible for benefits. Legally, constructive discharge is considered a form of wrongful termination, not a voluntary quit.
|
|
|
Post by mley1 on May 22, 2014 18:00:01 GMT -5
Uh, yea. I don't buy it. Here's the thing. Every single officer knows they have to pass the PAT, and it's been in place for several years. She had to pass it for many years, and was able to do so. Now she can't. The agency will win. I've seen this on a couple of other occasions happen to employee's that I personally knew and worked with. They were good employee's. But, due to their physical condition they were no longer able to pass the PAT test. They were separated from employment. They moved on to other jobs, and are no longer corrections officers.
You know, all of this amazes me. Many folks have cried and cried for TDCJ to up the hiring standards. Up the standards so that CO's can get pay raises. OK, the agency up the physical standards a touch, not much, just enough to make sure your breathing and can walk and lift a little weight. Now, that we have those standards and an older woman can't pass them folks are in an uproar and trying to say the woman should get a settlement from TDCJ for them terminating her employment. REALLY???
Folks, you can't have it both ways. You can't have a set of standards, and then ignore them for certain employee's just because they are not able to pass them. It doesn't work that way. Either you have standards and live by them. Or, you don't have standards at all. TDCJ will win.
|
|
|
Post by bobothebeaten on May 23, 2014 13:41:26 GMT -5
Uh, yea. I don't buy it. Here's the thing. Every single officer knows they have to pass the PAT, and it's been in place for several years. She had to pass it for many years, and was able to do so. Now she can't. The agency will win. I've seen this on a couple of other occasions happen to employee's that I personally knew and worked with. They were good employee's. But, due to their physical condition they were no longer able to pass the PAT test. They were separated from employment. They moved on to other jobs, and are no longer corrections officers. You know, all of this amazes me. Many folks have cried and cried for TDCJ to up the hiring standards. Up the standards so that CO's can get pay raises. OK, the agency up the physical standards a touch, not much, just enough to make sure your breathing and can walk and lift a little weight. Now, that we have those standards and an older woman can't pass them folks are in an uproar and trying to say the woman should get a settlement from TDCJ for them terminating her employment. REALLY??? Folks, you can't have it both ways. You can't have a set of standards, and then ignore them for certain employee's just because they are not able to pass them. It doesn't work that way. Either you have standards and live by them. Or, you don't have standards at all. TDCJ will win. The agency didn't start PAT requirement until a few years ago. Even at that time CO Burchfield was in her late 60's. If she was able to pass the PAT then good for her, but the bottom line is the agency changed the conditions of her employment after she was initially hire. It would be as if the agency came in tomorrow and said everyone employed must have an IQ of 90 or above. Or everyone must have blue eyes and be at least 6' tall. You make those changes at the initial hire date, not 19 years after someone has already been here. Gosh dang, our own Deputy Executive Director is only 4'2". He could never get to 6' if his job depended on it. I still believe that all CO's should be physically fit, but you can't turn an elephant into a gazelle. If you want gazelles then hire gazelles.
|
|
|
Post by mley1 on May 23, 2014 16:13:20 GMT -5
I hear ya. It still doesn't change my opinion of her situation. I think TDCJ will win. She had options available to her, and she failed to take advantage of them. Her lack of foresight, and age caught up with her.
|
|
|
Post by mley1 on May 23, 2014 16:15:44 GMT -5
I will add that her case will be interesting. And, if she wins, it will be a pivotal moment in TDCJ's history. They will be forced to grandfather in and keep every lazy, out of shape employee that was ever hired prior to the PAT being instituted that can't pass the PAT. Then folks will be bitching cause they got to work with those people. Go figure.
|
|
|
Post by bobothebeaten on May 26, 2014 12:23:31 GMT -5
I hear ya. It still doesn't change my opinion of her situation. I think TDCJ will win. She had options available to her, and she failed to take advantage of them. Her lack of foresight, and age caught up with her. TDCJ only seems to move forward after they are successfully sued by employees and convicts. Does that sound like good sound management practice?
|
|
|
Post by mley1 on May 26, 2014 22:41:30 GMT -5
I hear ya. It still doesn't change my opinion of her situation. I think TDCJ will win. She had options available to her, and she failed to take advantage of them. Her lack of foresight, and age caught up with her. TDCJ only seems to move forward after they are successfully sued by employees and convicts. Does that sound like good sound management practice? Bobo, in this case, what would they move forward to?? Less standards than they have now? Shall we lower our standards even more for correctional officers? Yea, that's it. Let's lower our standards to the point grandma can come in and run a cell block. Lets lower our standards to the point the legislature REALLY does have an excuse to LOWER our pay, rather than raise it. Is that where we'll go as an agency if grandma wins??
|
|
|
Post by gadget on May 27, 2014 1:11:08 GMT -5
When the ICS goes out....."Staff Assault/Use of force in progress".....Or like another one I heard "I need help at B Turnout!" You have to get there. When you get there, you have to be willing and able to fight with crooks.
When you're not able to do that, get out to the towers or touch ID cards at the gate.
|
|
|
Post by mley1 on Nov 5, 2014 9:39:52 GMT -5
Has anyone heard if there was resolution to this case? I'm still very interested to hear the outcome. I know of a few elderly officers, and others, who may be very interested in how this case concludes.
|
|
|
Post by bobothebeaten on Nov 8, 2014 12:15:56 GMT -5
Has anyone heard if there was resolution to this case? I'm still very interested to hear the outcome. I know of a few elderly officers, and others, who may be very interested in how this case concludes. I'm curious how this ended as well.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Oct 4, 2015 0:30:03 GMT -5
This test was not a requirement prior to being hired. Now they want to impose this test on officers who are in there fifties and sixties and seventies. If they want physically fit officers then great. It should be mandatory for all new hires and those who were hired prior to the test being implemented should be grandfathered. It has nothing to do with hiring grandma. I've served tdcj for many years and am not as young as I used to be and now I am asked to do something that was never required of me before. When you age you have to deal with age related limitations. It's a no brain-er. Make it mandatory for the new hires and those grandfathered will fall away through attrition. What about those who have served several years but don't meet the rule of 80. You shouldn't get fired for not doing something that wasn't a requirement to get hired. Oh well, this is only my opinion and doesn't count towards anything. Expecting a 70 year old to perform as well as someone half that age is wrong. If fitness was and is so important to TDCJ then it would of been in place decades ago.
|
|