Comments on: Supreme Court Says “Strong Basis” Needed In Disparate Impact Cases

By: employer background checks

employer background checks — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 01:00:39 +0000

employer background checks…

I enjoy reading your blog on ESL podcast | Phone Calls | Relationships | Fun English Lessons. I will surely pop by again….

By: charles handler

charles handler — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:06:25 +0000

this is a great discussion with excellent points by all parties. I will refrain from commenting here, but check out the thread from my article yesterday for more info on my thoughts.

By: Dave Pollock

Dave Pollock — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:10:28 +0000

Comment for Wendell – I wasn’t referring to the mathematics of an Adverse Impact analysis… which is performed at the Job Group level and REQUIRES the identification of the “most favored” group (the constant)in the formula. I was refering to the amount of money spent by employers trying to develop tests to AVOID adverse impact – which was the attempt by the employer in this case. Despite tens of thousands of dollars in developing a valid and reliable measurement tool they still froze in place when they failed to appease those who think 80% has any relationship to reality. 80% is, as Dave Arnold noted (above), a “rule of thumb” which may trigger a challenge. My point, although admittedly made with a healthy dose of sarcasm, is that fear of the challenge will cause on-going alterations to the VALID and RELIABLE tests ALL research depends upon, in an effort to approximate the results of a mathematical “rule of thumb” formula.

By: David Arnold

David Arnold — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:31:29 +0000

Hi:
Seems like a significant degree of confusion is stemming from a lack of distinction between the existence of disparate impact commonly found in hiring procedures (e.g., criminal background checks, credit reports, educational requirements, certain assessments, drug tests)and whether an employer’s use of a selection procedure constitutes unlawful disparate impact discrimination. In reality, the Ricci case continues to acknowledge that the 80 percent rule of thumb is still valid for triggering a disparate impact challenge–if you don’t hit the 80 percent mark, you don’t have a problem per se, rather you have a burden of justifying the use of the selection procedure. However, according to the Court a mere showing of statistical disparate imapct is not a strong basis in evidence that New Haven would have been liable under Title VII had it certified the results. That is due to the fact that New Haven would be liable for unlawful disparate-impact discrimination only if the hiring procedures were not job related and consistent with business necessity, or if there existed an equally valid, less-discriminatory alternative that served New Haven’s needs and the city refused to adopt it.

I trust this information is helpful. As an aside, I must admit, I wouldn’t provide my name as a source either if I was commenting on a case I hadn’t completely read.

Dave Arnold, Ph.D., J.D.

By: Thoughts on the Ricci Decision : ERE.net

Thoughts on the Ricci Decision : ERE.net — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:25:37 +0000

[...] news media. For those of you who are unaware, earlier this week the Supreme Court handed down a ruling in a case that deals with discrimination and employment testing. This case is highly relevant to [...]

By: Wendell Williams

Wendell Williams — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:38:50 +0000

Comment for Dave…Hold on to your hat. Adverse impact is not per-se illegal…it is a quick way for the government to determine whether your hiring process is disproportionally screening-out a legally protected group.

A.I. analysis is performed at the group, not individual, level. So far, at least, organizations are not legally required to hire unqualified people. If an organization can conclusively show a skill is necessary for both the job and the company; has documentation showing test scores have a strong relationship to job performance; and, has done everything they can to reduce effects of adverse impact, they are well within the Guidelines.

It’s a normal blind-spot for most folks, but unless an organization hires everybody who apples, they are using some form of test… even interviews and resume screens are tests…and research usually shows they have a significant amount of A.I.

By: Wendell Williams

Wendell Williams — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:19:36 +0000

From a legal standpoint, this is certainly a confusing decision that will keep lawyers gainfully employed for years to come; however, the financial impact of lawsuits are substantially less than the financial impact of bad hires.

Consider this: 1) the 80% rule is a “squinty-eyeball” measure of disparate impact (i.e., DOL and EEOC scientists actually use complicated form of statistical analysis); 2) if an organization fails the DOL/EEOC test, their first step is not to take you to the cleaners… it is to examine your professional job analyses, job requirements, business necessity, and validation studies. If these are weak or inadequate, THEN they take you to the cleaners.

How many organizations do you think have done their homework?

Hiring only one color, age or class of people is a poor reflection on social responsibility…but not following professional practices it is an even worse way of running a business…much like donning lead sneakers to run a cross-country race.

By: Dave Pollock

Dave Pollock — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 14:42:08 +0000

Does anyone else hear the chanting, “My test is better than your test…”? Will employers need to keep pumping tens of thousands of dollars into test development until the results match the 80% outcome of the Adverse Impact formula? I propose we use Schrödinger’s cat to make our decisions.

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive… ourselves.