29 C.F.R. § 1607.8
Cooperative studies
A. Encouragement of cooperative studies. The agencies issuing these guidelines encourage employers, labor organizations, and employment agencies to cooperate in research, development, search for lawful alternatives, and validity studies in order to achieve procedures which are consistent with these guidelines.
B. Standards for use of cooperative studies. If validity evidence from a cooperative study satisfies the requirements of section 14 below, evidence of validity specific to each user will not be required unless there are variables in the user's situation which are likely to affect validity significantly.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1975–1982 · leading case: 24 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1105, 24 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 31,297 James Craig, Jr. v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 626 F.2d 659 (9th Cir. 1980).
24 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1105, 24 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 31,297 James Craig, Jr. v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 626 F.2d 659 (9th Cir. 1980). “See 29 C.F.R. § 1607.8 (1975). As part of the requisite showing on remand, defendants must also establish that the after-training examinations, with which the ET4-1 test has already been shown to correlate, fairly measure the trainees’ mastery of the subject matter taught in the…”
Larry P. v. Riles, 495 F. Supp. 926 (N.D. Cal. 1979). “” 29 C.F.R. § 1607.8 . Whether or not the tests in fact do what they are supposed to do, the law is that defendants must come forward and show that they have been validated for each minority group with which they are used.”
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. Local 638, 401 F. Supp. 467 (S.D.N.Y. 1975). “” 29 C. F.R. § 1607.8 (1975). While the EEOC Guidelines are not binding on the courts, the Second Circuit has endorsed reliance on them “as a helpful summary of professional testing standards.”
Walls v. Mississippi State Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 542 F. Supp. 281 (N.D. Miss. 1982). “” 29 CFR § 1607.8 (1978). Furthermore, “[although professional supervision of testing activities may help greatly to insure technically sound and nondiscriminatory test usage, such involvement alone shall not be regarded as constituting satisfactory evidence of test validity.”
Officers for Just. v. Civil Serv. Com'n, San Fran., 395 F. Supp. 378 (N.D. Cal. 1975). “8(a), 29 C. F.R. § 1607.8 (a). The court is additionally unwilling, in light of the state of the record and the serious attempt to validate the examination, to order 50% quota hiring of females as was done in Schaeffer v.”
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.