Jordan V. City Of New London Case Study

603 Words3 Pages

In the case of Robert Jordan v. City of New London and Keith Harrigan, the plaintiff alleges that he was discriminated against based on his intellect. The Plaintiff Robert Jordan, a 46-year-old college graduate, with a degree in literature and interested in pursuing a career in law enforcement, took a written assessment with 500 other applicants on 16 March 1996, as part of a screening process for the position of police officer. The testing material used included the Wonderlic Personnel Test and Scholastic Level Exam referred to as “WPT,” which measures the cognitive ability of test subjects (2nd). This process was used to weed out the applicant pool, revealing the most qualified applicants based on test scores. The WPT test included recommended minimum and maximum test scores for various professions in the accompanying manual. The WPT manual cautioned that overqualified candidates became bored with unchallenging work and soon quit, therefore, indicating that the acceptance of high scoring candidates was not a sound economic practice (2nd). Based on WPT scores, the suggested range for patrol officers should fall between 22 and 29.Taking these factors into …show more content…

As stated in Article 5 section 20 of the 14th amendment of the Connecticut Constitution “No person shall be denied the equal protection of the law, nor be subjected to segregation or discrimination in the exercise or enjoyment of his or her civil or political rights …” (CT. Const. XIV art. V § XX). Jordan’s belief that he had been discriminated against based on intellectual capacity by the City of New London was dismissed by the District Court for the District of Connecticut as it granted the defendant’s motion, finding no violation of the equal protection