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
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Freeman, 288 F.R.D. 92 (D. Maryland 2012).
“” 29 C.F.R. § 1607.1 (2012). While they do not address arrest, conviction, or credit-history records specifically, 5 they set forth general principles for avoiding Title VII disparate impact liability.”
Howe v. City of Akron, 789 F. Supp. 2d 786 (N.D. Ohio 2011).
“The Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection (“UGES”), 29 C.F.R. § 1607.1 -.16, interpret the Civil Rights Act and include the 4/5ths Rule, 29 C.”
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.”
Bradley v. City of Lynn, 443 F. Supp. 2d 145 (D. Mass. 2006).
“Should the Division of Civil Service desire to utilize entrance examinations in the future for the purpose of selecting firefighters, such examinations shall be demonstrably job-related and validated in accordance with the “Guidelines on Employees Selection Procedures” issued by…”
Gulino v. Bd. of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of New York, 236 F. Supp. 2d 314 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).
“Plaintiffs argue that their statistical expert, Thomas DiPrete, showed a statistically significant difference between the pass rates of African American and Latino educators (roughly 45%) and white educators (roughly 85%).”
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…”
Burney v. Rheem Mfg. Co., 196 F.R.D. 659 (M.D. Ala. 2000).
“29 C.F.R. § 1607.1 (B)(“[The guidelines] are designed to provide a framework for determining the proper use of tests and other selection procedures.”
— 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.