A male flunked out of the FBI Academy by failing by one push-up to complete the 30 push-ups required of male trainees. He sued for sex discrimination on the basis that female trainees were only required to do 14 push-ups. The trial court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on his sex discrimination claim, and the defendant appealed. The federal appeals court held that an employer does not violate Title VII when it uses 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 of each. Because the trial court failed to apply this rule in reaching its decision, further proceedings were required. Bauer v. Lynch, #14-2323, 2016 U.S. App. Lexis 379 (4th Cir.).

     Seventh Circuit affirms the dismissal of a reverse discrimination claim that the plaintiff was fired as a probationary Treasury Agent (for taking too long to complete assignments and exercising poor judgment) because he is a white male, while women agents were not disciplined for more egregious behavior. He was able to cite only a single instance of supposedly disparate treatment. Katerinos v. U.S., #02-3247, 2004 U.S. App. Lexis 9294, 93 FEP Cases (BNA) 1304 (7th Cir. 2004). {N/R}
     Federal appeals court rejects a discrimination suit filed by males who compained that a woman coworker was treated more favorably because of her sexually suggestive behavior. Schobert v. IL Dept. of Transp., #01-1598, 304 F.3d 725, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 18839, 89 FEP Cases (BNA) 1420 (7th Cir. 2002). {N/R}
     Gender-norming physical fitness standards for police officers did not violate the equal protection rights of male applicants. Alspaugh v. Cmsn. on Law Enf. Stds., #220156, 246 Mich. App. 547, 634 N.W.2d 161 -- relying on state laws and decisions. [N/R]
     A general "no strike" clause in a bargaining agreement does not prohibit "sympathy strikes" to support non unit coworkers, unless the right to engage in supporting job actions was clearly and unmistakably waived in the bargaining agreement. Childrens Hosp. v. Calif. Nurses Assn., #00-15636, 2002 U.S. App. Lexis 4601 (9th Cir. 2002). [N/R]
     Three while males are unsuccessful at their challenge of the St. Paul MN police dept. hiring list. They alleged minorities and women were given greater opportunities. The appeals court found their claims were speculative. Grahek v. St. Paul, 84 F.3d 296, 1996 U.S. App. Lexis 11814 (8th Cir.), relying on Donaghy v. Omaha (8th Cir. 1991). {N/R}
     Federal court invalidates Pittsburgh's guarantee that 1 of 3 new firefighters will be women. Quirin v. City of Pittsburgh,64 FEP Cases (BNA) 1521 (W.D.Pa. 1994). [1994 FP 155-6]
     A state agency breached its contract with the union when it promoted a female over a more qualified male, in violation of a clause in the agreement which prohibited all forms of illegal discrimination. Mich. Dept. of Public Health and Mich. Prof. Employees, 101 LA (BNA) 713 (Kanner, 1993). {N/R}