A. Use of alternate selection procedures to eliminate adverse impact. A user may choose to utilize alternative selection procedures in order to eliminate adverse impact or as part of an affirmative action program. See section 13 below. Such alternative procedures should eliminate the adverse impact in the total selection process, should be lawful and should be as job related as possible.
B. Where validity studies cannot or need not be performed. There are circumstances in which a user cannot or need not utilize the validation techniques contemplated by these guidelines. In such circumstances, the user should utilize selection procedures which are as job related as possible and which will minimize or eliminate adverse impact, as set forth below.
(1) Where informal or unscored procedures are used. When an informal or unscored selection procedure which has an adverse impact is utilized, the user should eliminate the adverse impact, or modify the procedure to one which is a formal, scored or quantified measure or combination of measures and then validate the procedure in accord with these guidelines, or otherwise justify continued use of the procedure in accord with Federal law.
(2) Where formal and scored procedures are used. When a formal and scored selection procedure is used which has an adverse impact, the validation techniques contemplated by these guidelines usually should be followed if technically feasible. Where the user cannot or need not follow the validation techniques anticipated by these guidelines, the user should either modify the procedure to eliminate adverse impact or otherwise justify continued use of the procedure in accord with Federal law.
Notes of Decisions
Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U.S. 977 (1988).
· cites it 2× “See 29 CFR §§ 1607.6 (B)(1) and (2) (1987) (where selection procedure with disparate impact cannot be formally validated, employer can "justify continued use of the procedure in accord with Federal law").”
Hardy v. Stumpf, 576 P.2d 1342 (Cal. 1978).
· cites it 2× “As a consequence, defendants' failure to justify the use of smooth plywood is significant. Finally, the federal Guidelines expect "that each operational cutoff score [in an employment test] will be reasonable and consistent with normal expectations of proficiency within the work…”
Stamps v. Detroit Edison Co., 365 F. Supp. 87 (E.D. Mich. 1973).
· cites it 3× “The EEOC Guidelines, also require that cut-off scores or test standards must be related to “normal expectations of proficiency” in the work force and that they be reasonable, 29 C.F.R. 1607.6. Unless the relationship, or correlation, between test performance and criteria of job…”
Vanguard Just. Soc'y, Inc. v. Hughes, 471 F. Supp. 670 (D. Maryland 1979).
“See 29 C.F.R. § 1607.6 . Clearly, the promotion-level sergeant examination has not been established as a validated test.”
Bridgeport Guardians v. Bridgeport Police Dep't, 431 F. Supp. 931 (D. Conn. 1977).
“” 29 C.F.R. § 1607.6 . What is less certain is whether scoring seven points above the national average is a sufficiently reliable indicator of job performance at the level of competence sought by use of this test.”
Ass'n Against Discrimination in Emp., Inc. v. City of Bridgeport, 454 F. Supp. 751 (D. Conn. 1978).
“” 29 C.F.R. § 1607.6 (1977). In Guardian II, the Court found that the test had been designed so that a successful candidate would have had to obtain a higher score on the exam than had been obtained by most other candidates who had previously taken the same test.”
United States v. City of St. Louis, 410 F. Supp. 948 (E.D. Mo. 1976).
“29 C.F.R. § 1607.6 . It was clear from the evidence that only a few persons from the eligibility list would be promoted.”
Firefighters Inst. for Racial Equality v. City of St. Louis, 549 F.2d 506 (8th Cir. 1977).
“29 C.F.R. § 1607.6 (1975). . Dr. Barrett objected to “tenuous linkage” in some questions; questions where a correct answer did not guarantee adequate performance on the job; and questions that gave a premium to the test-wise individual.”
Robert Mems v. City of St. Paul (8th Cir. 2000).
“See 29 C.F.R. §1607.6 (D) (2000). Although white firefighters passed the written examination in greater numbers than African-Americans, the sample size ranged from three to seven.”
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.