healthy snacks for kids to make, lunches, parties, on the go

My question concerns whether the courts still allow for age and/or gender norming of physical fitness test standards - specifically in a police/law enforcement setting.  In the past, agencies almost always had men's standards, and lower women's standards (things like push ups, pull ups, sit ups, running etc.).  Scores for both men and women were further different by age groupings. Didn't the law change, or the courts or EEOC rule within the past several years that such norming was not legal?  I guess the argument was that if a standard was necessary and essential for a particular position, ANYONE in that position would need to meet the standard. In the law enforcement case, a bad guy doesn't turn around and check to see if you are a man or a women, or a 20 year old, or a 50 year old officer before fleeing.  If the government agency says it is an essential element of your job to be able to run after crooks, shouldn't ALL officers be able to meet that standard?                                     Background for the Question My question arises out of a federal law enforcement agency trying to (well actually they already have) have a mandatory physical fitness program.  We never had one before - we just had to take a pt test twice per year and we were encouraged to do well (we're white collar crime investigators - mostly paper crimes, not street crime).  Now, if you don't do the specified number of sit ups, push ups, run, etc, you are not eligible for promotions or awards, and you are singled out for special consideration by management. In my case, I do the required number of sit ups, push ups etc - I'm just overweight.  I've already been denied one award that three levels of management said they wanted to give me but couldn't due to the new program.  Now, my 3rd level up supervisor has found other agents who hadn't met their fitness improvement plans did in fact receive some awards.  My boss just found that out too late. I've been told by the Federal Office of Personnel Management that this program is clearly contrary to law, and would not withstand legal challenge. They also pointed out that an agency can do whatever they want, untill someone DOES challenge them.  I've found a recent (summer 1996) Federal District Court case in which an obese officer who was fired was awarded $200,000 by a jury (and his wife $10000), for being fired for not meeting the department's fitness test (he was overweight).  The judge in that case said the fitness test had nothing to do with the officer's essential job elements (and I'd point out the officer was a real policeman, not a white collar crime investigator).  I really don't want to sue unless it is really necessary - I'll become a marked man - but, the more information I can bring to their attention, the better our chances are of getting them to see the error of their ways, if you will.  Hence, my norming question. I'd also point out that there seems to be two real reasons this new mandatory fitness program is being stressed.  First, our agency director is afraid (and has talked with numerous people) about a push inside the Federal Government to reduce the number of GS1811 (OPM criminal investigator series) criminal investigators (who have special 20 year retirement rights), and make more of them GS1800 (general investigator series) agents.  GS1800 series folks do not get to retire in 20 years, and are generally paid slightly less than the 1811's.  The director seems to be trying to make us look more and more like we were street police, instead of white collar crime investigators. Also, the director and deputy director have a thing about a Federal law enforcement officer's image (that's right, whatever such an image may be). In our manual, and in numerous memorandums, the topic of the agents' responsibility to maintain a certain image, etc. has been actually put in writing.  One memo was saying that when a person was being considered for a position and couldn't pass the fitness test, if that person LOOKED like they could pass the test in the future (like a runner who didn't currently have enough upper body strenght for push ups) could still be hired.  Yes, it said looked like they could. I could go on and on, but you probably get the picture.  Even in the FBI academy now, were told an applicant who can't pass the fitness tests are no longer fired - they are recycled until they either give up, or eventually pass the test. Anyway - how about the age/gender norming issue?  I think if a fitness standard is deemed to be essential to the performance of the job, then ALL agents should be held to that standard.  What do the law and courts say? I'd appreciate any comments or information on the specific norming question, or the other issues raised in the narrative.  Thanks in advance.  (Also, I am aware that fed agents fall under the Rehab Act of 1973,and NOT the ADA).