You can now register for the 2018 conference.
The 2018 Conference page is open. Content will be updated regularly over the next few months.
Registration is now open for the 2017 IPAC Pre-Conference Workshops.
IPAC 2017 Annual Conference
Assessments of Steel
Registration is now open!
Conference Dates: July 16-19, 2017
Conference Location: Birmingham, AL
The panel discussion will be held from 2 pm to 4 pm, followed by a Talent & Connection Networking Event from 4 pm to 7 pm. The networking event is a great opportunity to connect with local talent and get to know other organizations in the Washington DC area.
The event will be held at the George Washington University in Washington, DC. For more details and to register, please visit the PTCMW site: http://www.ptcmw.org/event-2372395
For those needing the re-certification credits for either HRCI or SHRM the document below will walk you through all the steps.
The July issue of the ACN is now available to members! In this issue:
The 2016 Pre-conference workshop information is now available and registration is open. This year we are excited to offer 5 half-day workshops held on Sunday July 31st, 2016.
We’ve simplified the pricing this year so that you pay just based on membership level not on when you register:
As always all the details can be found on the website including a detailed description of each workshop and bios from the presenters; or visit the events page for registration.
We are excited to announce that registration is now open for the 2016 IPAC Conference. The fee structure for the 2016 Conference is exactly the same as last year, and as always, makes it more advantageous to register early. Register by July 4th to benefit from early bird registration.
We invite you to join us for invaluable learning, career development, and networking opportunities. IPAC offers engaging, practical workshops , concurrent sessions, renowned keynote speakers, and fun social events. This unique conference experience shouldn’t be missed!
Don’t miss the Gold Rush: Nuggets of Truth in Assessment at the 2016 IPAC Conference in Sacramento, CA.
Visit the 2016 Conference home page and stay up-to-date on all the latest news and announcements. We look forward to seeing you in Sacramento!
Bauer v. Lynch (4th Cir. Jan. 11, 2016)
Gender-Normed Physical Test Standards
Summary by Chad Smith, student at the Moritz College of Law - The Ohio State University
ISSUEIs the FBI’s practice of using gender-normed standards for a measure of physical fitness a violation of Title VII? According to the plaintiff in Bauer v. Lynch, it is alleged that the FBI’s practice of having separate push-up requirements for both males and females is a violation of civil rights under Title VII. Bauer v. Lynch, No. 14-2323, (4th Cir. Jan. 11, 2016).
BRIEF ANSWERBased on the opinion of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, the practice is a violation. However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has vacated and remanded the decision for further proceedings. Because of this, at least in the interim, the practice has been upheld. Bauer v. Holder, 25 F. Supp. 3d 842 (E.D. Va. 2014).
RATIONALEThe policy at issue is that as a part of the statistical standardization, the FBI sought to normalize testing standards between men and women in order to account for their innate physiological differences. Bauer v. Lynch, No. 14-2323, (4th Cir. Jan. 11, 2016). The FBI reasoned that, due to such distinctions, equally fit men and women would perform differently in the same events. With that, male recruits at the academy are required to complete more push-ups than female recruits. Bauer v. Lynch, No. 14-2323, (4th Cir. Jan. 11, 2016).
Though the Appeals Court agrees that the standards are facially discriminatory, they found that no prior decision confronting the use of gender-normed physical fitness standards in the Title VII context has deemed such standards to be unlawful. In Powell, the court explained that “Title VII allows employers to make distinctions based on undeniable physical differences between men and women…where no significantly greater burden of compliance is placed on either sex.” Powell v. Reno, No. 96-2743, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24169
RULE“An employer does not contravene Title VII when it utilizes physical fitness standards that distinguish between the sexes on the basis of their physiological differences but impose an equal burden of compliance on both men and women, requiring the same level of physical fitness in each. Because the FBI purports to assess physical fitness by imposing the same burden on both men and women, this rule applies to Bauer’s Title VII claims.” Bauer v. Lynch, No. 14-2323, (4th Cir. Jan. 11, 2016).
WHAT’S NEXTThe Appeals Court in this case has vacated the District Court’s summary judgment verdict for Bauer. Further, the Appeals Court remands to the District Court on the basis that the District Court reviewed the case and granted summary judgment on an improper legal standard. With that, Bauer’s summary judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for review under the standard set forth by the Appeals Court, and the motion for summary judgment by the United States is to be reconsidered by the District Court.