Robert Jordan, along with 500 others, took a written test for consideration to be a police officer in one of several cities and towns in southeastern Connecticut on March 16, 1996 (Jordan v. City of New London, 1999). The test was administered by “LEC” which is the Law Enforcement Council of Southeastern Connecticut, Inc. (Jordan v. City of New London, 1999). For the participating police departments, this test was used as an initial screener for likely candidates (Jordan v. City of New London, 1999). This written test utilized the Wonderlic Personnel Test and Scholastic Level Exam (WPT), which claim to gage cognitive aptitude (Jordan v. City of New London, 1999). This test actually came with a handbook that showcased recommended scores for particular jobs such a police officer and warned that higher scores needed for a job could prevent that opportunity (Jordan v. City of New London, 1999). The reasoning behind this was that over qualified folks usually leave their job soon after the agency has spent a significant amount of time and money into the applicant (Jordan v. City of New London, 1999). The score recommended for police officers was 21, and candidates selected had score ranges from 20-27 (Jordan v. City of New London, 1999). Robert Jordan scored a 33 (Jordan v. City of New London, 1999). …show more content…
City of New London, 1999). Robert initially thought he was being discriminated against for his age, as he was 46 (Jordan v. City of New London, 1999). After making a formal complaint, he was informed by the city that he was not being selected for interview because his WPT score was too high at 33 and the criteria for the city was to only interview those who scored between 20-27 on the WPT (Jordan v. City of New London,