SETTLEMENT OF UP TO $2.1 MILLION FOR 'POLITICAL' QUESTIONS IN JOB APPLICATION

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A security guard firm that asked job applicants
politically loaded questions, such as their views on legalizing marijuana
and proper corporate profit levels, settled a class action lawsuit for up
to $2.1 million.

The suit, settled Thursday, was filed in 1994 by a rejected applicant
represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and claimed the screening
test by Burns International Security Services violated a California law
that bans job discrimination based on political views.

The company denied violating the law and admitted no wrongdoing in the
settlement. But Brad Seligman, a lawyer for the job applicants, said
rulings by U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel that allowed the suit to
proceed should discourage similar tests by other California employers. The
settlement is subject to Patel's approval.

Patel ``made it abundantly clear that this test was at great risk of being
found illegal,'' Seligman said. ``We hope we've put an end to it''
statewide.

He said Burns discontinued the test after the suit was filed.

Burns' parent company, Chicago-based Borg-Warner Protective Services Corp.,
said in a statement, ``We denied all liability ... and our decision to
settle was based on business and economic reasons.'' Borg-Warner, which
includes the Burns, Wells Fargo and Globe security companies, has 70,000
employees in North America.

The settlement will total at least $1.6 million, which the company has
already paid, Seligman said. It includes $1 million for damages to all
applicants who took the test, with a maximum of $1,250 for rejected
applicants and a maximum of $500 for those who were hired. Seligman said
about 8,000 people took the test but the whereabouts of many of them are
unknown.

The remaining $600,000 will go for lawyers' fees and the costs of the suit
and the settlement process. If Burns meets certain profitability standards
or merges with another company within three years, it will pay up to
$500,000 more, to be divided between attorneys' fees and funding for
workers'-rights clinics at law schools, Seligman said.

The original plaintiff, Mel Thompson of Corte Madera, had worked as a
security guard for other companies before applying to Burns in August 1993.
He said his interviewer seemed impressed with his qualifications before
giving him a written test called PASS III.

The test consisted of 100 statements with which applicants were asked to
agree or disagree. One statement said most companies make too much profit.
Another said most employers try to underpay their employees. There were
also some drug-related questions, including statements that marijuana
should be legalized and the drinking age should be lowered.

Thompson's lawyers said they obtained documents showing that answers were
graded on an ``alienation index'' and a scale of ``drug attitudes.''

Thompson said he was rejected after he marked the ``don't know'' box for
each question to which he objected. Seligman said Thompson, who now works
as a security guard for another firm and also writes poetry, will receive
$30,000 in the settlement.

The company contended the test measured attitudes, not politics.

Checked-by: (Joel W. Johnson)