A. Unacceptable substitutes for evidence of validity. Under no circumstances will the general reputation of a test or other selection procedures, its author or its publisher, or casual reports of its validity be accepted in lieu of evidence of validity. Specifically ruled out are: assumptions of validity based on a procedure's name or descriptive labels; all forms of promotional literature; data bearing on the frequency of a procedure's usage; testimonial statements and credentials of sellers, users, or consultants; and other nonempirical or anecdotal accounts of selection practices or selection outcomes.
B. Encouragement of professional supervision. Professional supervision of selection activities is encouraged but is not a substitute for documented evidence of validity. The enforcement agencies will take into account the fact that a thorough job analysis was conducted and that careful development and use of a selection procedure in accordance with professional standards enhance the probability that the selection procedure is valid for the job.
Notes of Decisions
Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405 (1975).
· cites it 2× “29 CFR § 1607.9 . Whether such circumstances now obtain is a matter best decided, in the first instance, by the District Court.”
M.O.C.H.A. Soc'y, Inc. v. City of Buffalo, 689 F.3d 263 (2d Cir. 2012).
· cites it 2× “24 similar and that familiar “intelligence tests are always valid”); 29 C.F.R. § 1607.9 (A) (prohibiting employer from using promotional examination based on “nonempirical or anecdotal accounts of selection practices or selection outcomes”).”
Williams v. Ford Motor Co., 187 F.3d 533 (6th Cir. 1999).
· cites it 2× “” 29 C.F.R. § 1607.9 (A). “Professional supervision of selection activities is encouraged but is not a substitute for documented evidence of validity.”
Friend v. Leidinger, 446 F. Supp. 361 (E.D. Va. 1977).
“14 ), 29 C.F.R. § 1607.9 . Mr. Sutton testified that a predictive validity study would be done as soon as a sufficient sample of firemen who had taken the test and had been hired had been gathered.”
Walls v. Mississippi State Dep't of Pub. Welfare, 730 F.2d 306 (5th Cir. 1984).
· cites it 4× “On appeal, the state Department re-urges an immunity defense to the back-pay claim, which was raised in the trial court; it was not passed upon by the district court, probably because the court felt that consideration of this issue properly awaited determination in the damages…”
Buckner v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 339 F. Supp. 1108 (N.D. Ala. 1972).
“29 C.F.R. § 1607.9 . The fact that the tests have been used since 1965, though prior to validation studies, is of some support to the company rather than the plaintiffs.”
Bazile v. City of Houston, 858 F. Supp. 2d 718 (S.D. Tex. 2012).
“29 C.F.R. § 1607.9 (A). Even assuming that cognitive skills are a valid prediction of some aspects of job performance, Dr.”
Morrow v. Dillard, 412 F. Supp. 494 (S.D. Miss. 1976).
“29 C.F.R. 1607.9. In conducting the study, the department should give great deference to the EEOC’s Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, 29 C.”
— 29 C.F.R. § 1607.9(A) — 1 case
— 29 C.F.R. § 1607.9(B) — 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.