A. Need for uniformity—Issuing agencies. The Federal government's need for a uniform set of principles on the question of the use of tests and other selection procedures has long been recognized. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Civil Service Commission, the Department of Labor, and the Department of Justice jointly have adopted these uniform guidelines to meet that need, and to apply the same principles to the Federal Government as are applied to other employers.
B. Purpose of guidelines. These guidelines incorporate a single set of principles which are designed to assist employers, labor organizations, employment agencies, and licensing and certification boards to comply with requirements of Federal law prohibiting employment practices which discriminate on grounds of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. They are designed to provide a framework for determining the proper use of tests and other selection procedures. These guidelines do not require a user to conduct validity studies of selection procedures where no adverse impact results. However, all users are encouraged to use selection procedures which are valid, especially users operating under merit principles.
C. Relation to prior guidelines. These guidelines are based upon and supersede previously issued guidelines on employee selection procedures. These guidelines have been built upon court decisions, the previously issued guidelines of the agencies, and the practical experience of the agencies, as well as the standards of the psychological profession. These guidelines are intended to be consistent with existing law.
Notes of Decisions
Merritt v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc., 601 F.3d 289 (4th Cir. 2010).
· cites it 2× “See 29 C.F.R. § 1607.1 et seq. But this justification is not available to Stoddard or to Old Dominion, because Merritt had not only been performing her Pickup and Delivery duties for months before her injury, but performing them very well.”
Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405 (1975).
· cites it 2× “" 29 CFR § 1607.1 (c). We granted certiorari [5] because of an evident Circuit conflict as to the standards governing awards of backpay [6] and as to the showing required to establish the "job relatedness" of pre-employment tests.”
Detroit Edison Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd., 440 U.S. 301 (1979).
· cites it 2× “See Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n, Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, 29 CFR § 1607.1 et seq. (1977). The guidelines state that "properly validated and standardized employee selection procedures can significantly contribute to the implementation of…”
Montana Rail Link v. Byard, 860 P.2d 121 (Mont. 1993).
· cites it 2× “” 29 CFR § 1607.1 (B). The guidelines are based upon court decisions, previous agency guidelines and the practical experiences of the various agencies and are “intended to be consistent with existing law.”
Brunet v. City of Columbus, 642 F. Supp. 1214 (S.D. Ohio 1986).
· cites it 3× “The Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (“Guidelines”), 29 C.F.R. §§ 1607.1 et seq., also support the viéw that individual components of a testing procedure need not be justified by an employer where the entire testing procedure does not have an adverse impact.”
Hardy v. Stumpf, 576 P.2d 1342 (Cal. 1978).
· cites it 2× “[] Retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court sitting under assignment by the Chairperson of the Judicial Council.”
Massachusetts Ass'n of Minority Law Enf't Officers v. Abban, 748 N.E.2d 455 (Mass. 2001).
“On September 16, 1980, all parties entered into the consent decree, approved and ordered by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, that set certain numerical goals for promoting African-American officers to the rank of sergeant and called for future…”
United States v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 696 F. Supp. 1287 (N.D. Cal. 1988).
· cites it 2× “The significance of the disparity in passing rates was determined by reference to the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (“the Uniform Guidelines”), 29 C.F.R. § 1607.1 et seq. 23 FEHC, 191 Cal.”
Rose Mary Roth BOYD Et Al., Appellants, v. OZARK AIR LINES, INC., Appellee, 568 F.2d 50 (8th Cir. 1977).
“3 Boyd argues, however, that while this evidence may support the job relatedness and necessity of a minimum height requirement in general, the five-foot-five-inch height requirement approved by the trial court has not been sufficiently validated in accord with 29 C.F.R. § 1607.1…”
Boston Police Superior Officers Fed'n v. City of Boston, 147 F.3d 13 (1st Cir. 1998).
“) The decree also contained provisions (the scope of which is now disputed, see infra) concerning validation of BPD promotional exams and practices in accordance with the EEOC’s Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, 29 C.F.R. § 1607.1 et seq. Two of the…”
United States v. City of Buffalo, 457 F. Supp. 612 (W.D.N.Y. 1978).
“Finally, defendants have admitted that no attempt has ever been made to validate the MPTC height, weight, and physical fitness standards in accordance with EEOC Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, 29 C.F.R. §§ 1607.1 et seq. See MPTC Standards at i-ii.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 1607.1(B)(1998) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.