Bauer v. Lynch, 812F.3d 340 (4th Cir. 2016), cert, denied, 137 S. Ct. 372 (2016)

1.) What was the legal issue in this case? What did the court decide?

2.) What is the evidence of discriminatory effects in this case?

3.) What distinction is the court drawing between job relatedness and business necessity? What is the evidence that SEPTA's aerobic capacity test is both jobs related and consistent with business necessity?

4.) Because physical fitness is clearly related to doing the job of transit officer, why shouldn't SEPTA be free to set high standards and hire only the most physically fit?