41 C.F.R. § 60-3.1

Statement of purpose

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

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

Cited in 6 cases, 1975–1984 · leading case: Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405 (1975).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405 (1975). · cites it 2× “41 CFR § 60-3.1 et seq. [30] The Guidelines provide, at 29 CFR §§ 1607.”

Detroit Police Officers Ass'n v. Young, 446 F. Supp. 979 (E.D. Mich. 1978). “76 41 C.F.R. § 60-3.1 et seq. Notwithstanding the fact that these guidelines, like those of the Department of Justice, have not been specifically adopted by the EEOC as protector under Title VII the Court will accord them due deference.”

Jesse Douglas v. Robert E. Hampton, Chairman of Civil Serv. Comm'n, 512 F.2d 976 (D.C. Cir. 1975). “41 C.F.R. §§ 60-3.1 et seq. (1974). 75 . APA Standards, supra note 59.”

Davis v. Washington, 512 F.2d 956 (D.C. Cir. 1975). “41 C.F.R. §§ 60-3.1 et seq. (1974). In any event, the issue is largely academic in view of our holding in Douglas v.”

United States v. Allegheny-Ludlum Indus., Inc., 517 F.2d 826 (5th Cir. 1975). “41 C.F.R. § 60-3.1 et seq. (1974). Paragraph 11 provides that such tests also must be validated in accordance with the EEOC’s “Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures,” 29 C.”

United States v. City of Yonkers, 609 F. Supp. 1281 (S.D.N.Y. 1984). “encies charged with the enforcement of equal opportunity law identify significant adverse impact of selection procedures: A selection rate for any race, sex, or ethnic group which is less than four-fifths (Vb) (or eighty percent) of the rate for the group with the highest rate…”

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.