Test For Discriminatory Results

Words: 894
Pages: 4

. A simple guideline to test for discriminatory effects is the EEOC’s four-fifths rule which means if the selection rate of applicants who pass the test for one race, sex, or protected class is less than 80 percent of the selection rate for the race, sex, or other protected class that was most successful at passing the test is evidence of discrimination. It is important to know that the relevant comparison between the classes is between selection rates and not the absolute numbers of people hired. A test can be defended if the employer can prove the test is job related and is a business necessity. It is very important for employers to have evidence of the validity of a test that is producing the discriminatory effects. Employers should use …show more content…
Employers use cutoff scores for test that are seen as failing or below their requirements which disqualify candidates from the position. The employers must not adjust the scores or use different cutoff scores based on the applicants race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. When employers implement the banding of test scores it can lower the discriminatory effects of tests without affecting the principle of selecting the most able applicants. The test scores are treated as estimates for characteristics because it can contain errors form different sources, and test scores are treated differently to reflect real differences in the characteristics. Employers also have a legal responsibility to accommodate disabled people if it is obvious they need the accommodation, but if it’s not obvious then the applicant should inform the employer before the test. Employers can also require applicants to report their need for accommodation in the application and before the testing process. The testing could be for people with disabilities for their vision, hearing, and use of extremities, concentration, or reading …show more content…
In the Auburn, AL store, John Whittle was recently fired after inquiring about benefits for his same sex partner. The franchisee, Paul Alexander, explained that Alabama is an employment at will state and he did not need to defend his termination of Whittle. John Whittle decides to sue. (14 points)
I would rule in favor of Office Crate because they are in an employment at will state which means they don’t have to have a good, bad or no reason at all to fire an employee. As far as the same sex partner benefits goes that is at the companies discretion to offer the benefits. Because the federal law does not currently prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, it also doesn’t require that benefits be made available to domestic partners. If the company offered these benefits to domestic partners then it would be in the employee handbook.

B. Brenda Rose was a former night manager of an Office Crate store in Omaha. She argues that she was demoted after she became pregnant and was later fired and replaced by a man. She is suing the company for wrongful termination. (15