Reference no: EM133348257

Specific details about what you should discuss are provided for each question. But all should follow the same general structure. In each case, your answer should identify 1) the specific constitutional clauses at stake, as well as 2) the relevant precedents from Court cases, and then 3) apply these elements to the specific facts of the case. Your answer should explicitly reference these cases and clauses, not merely reference the ideas that they represent.

This exam is open-note and open-book. You are welcome to use whatever resources you would like to consult, including course readings, lectures, online sources, etc. You are also welcome to discuss the topics with one another.

Question 1: Equal Protection in Hiring The city of Trentburg, Ohio has recently established a new set of regulations for hiring police officers. To be hired, applicants must:

pass a rigorous set of physical tests, including sprints, distance-running, running an obstacle course, weight-lifting, etc.
pass a written test demonstrating strong understanding of the law, proper police procedure in a variety of hypothetical situations.
Pass a psychological test, measuring demeanor and crisis management skills.
For candidates who meet the minimum above standards, the hiring board is granted discretion in each individual case to incorporate any other factors they consider important for improving the overall quality of the force. However, they have been given a set of additional guidelines to facilitate those judgments:

Special priority should be granted to applicants with particularly valuable skills. Examples listed include: ability to speak Spanish (the most common non-English language spoken in the city), facility with unarmed combat and non-lethal weapons, a strong legal background, facility with data management.

Special priority should be given to female applicants, given the need to handle female suspects and prisoners and the need to interact with female victims of sexual assault, domestic violence, and rape. At least three women must be on staff at any given time, in order to ensure that these needs do not go unfulfilled.

Two challenges to these standards have been raised. In the first, a woman named Jackie Wu has filed a complaint that the physical requirements violate the Equal Protection Clause. She was denied a position because her lifting strength measured three pound below the minimum threshold. She excelled in every other category, but the physical tests are a firm baseline requirement. Failure to meet any single standard constitutes a basis for rejecting the entire application. Wu claims that this particular standard is too rigid and deliberately meant to exclude women. She notes that the flexibility requirements (an area that men are likely to face more difficulties) have been set very low, while the lifting strength requirements exceed the standard amounts set by most other cities. Further, she notes that this restriction runs directly counter to the special priority meant to be given to female candidates. The government's response notes the facial neutrality of the standard, and argues that lifting strength is a clear occupational necessity. In the second case, a man named Edgar Rodriguez has filed an Equal Protection claim against the preference for female candidates. He argues that this constitutes a special benefit granted on the basis of sex, which must therefore be subject to heightened scrutiny. The government has defended the law by arguing that the necessity for interacting with female suspects and victims constitutes an important governmental interest, and the hiring instructions are substantially related to that interest. Assess these two challenges. Are the regulations, as formulated, constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause? Your answer should discuss both Wu's and Rodriguez's claims and should include an analysis of 1) the level of scrutiny to be employed in examining these claims and 2) relevant Supreme Court precedents.