Equal opportunity in personnel selection

1. Equal opportunity in personnel selection

2. The issue of discrimination • What is the point of selection? • To discriminate – we want to separate the best from the worst • The problem is discriminating between things that are not legally defensible • You don’t have to worry about this if: • You don’t discriminate against a protected group • Your business is small (>15 employees) • You can prove the practice is job related

3. Disparate treatment & impact • Disparate treatment: when the selection process overtly discriminates against certain groups • Ex) you cannot turn away applicants for a job just because they are pregnant • Disparate impact: also “adverse impact”, this is when a selection process inadvertently discriminates against certain groups • Ex) pull-up/strength requirements

4. Protected groups • The EEOC has mandated that you cannot treat members of a protected group differently • Protected groups: race, color, religion, national origin, age (40+), sex, family status, disability, veteran status, and genetic information • What groups are not protected? • Manifestations: intentional, open bias, retaliation, exclusionary policies

5. Important laws & acts • Civil Rights Act of 1964, 1991 Title VII • An employer cannot discriminate in hiring, firing, compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. • Established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to enforce & interpret Title VII • Permits discrimination under a few circumstances (bona fide occupational qualification, seniority systems)

6. Important laws & acts • Executive Order 11246: prohibits government contractors from discriminating, must take affirmative action • Equal Pay Act of 1963: equal pay for equal work • Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967: forbids discrimination against anyone 40+ • Americans with Disabilities Act: forbids discrimination against anyone based on disability

7. Griggs v. Duke Power (1971) • Blacks relegated to lowest positions (e.g. labor) • From 1955-65, minimum req for hiring/transfers was HS diploma • In North Carolina at the time only 34% white males had these compared to 12% black males • Black workers effectively blocked from getting better jobs • Workers who were hired before the HS diploma requirement performed well and achieved promotions

8. Griggs v. Duke Power (1971) • In 1965 (when Title VII was in effect), Duke changed its requirements – now needed HS diploma OR to pass two aptitude tests • Few black individuals could pass these new tests • Can an employer use a superficially neutral criteria for selection, which effectively removes protected groups? • Duke could not meet “burden of proof” for their requirement • Burden shifted to plaintiff anyway, showed there was a better way

9. Albermarle Paper Co. v. Moody (1975) • Albermarle wanted to modernize, felt that higher verbal proficiency in employees would help • Required a HS diploma OR that the applicant pass a battery of 10 tests • Both showed adverse impact, so Moody filed a lawsuit • The company hired an I/O expert to do a validation study – found one test or the other were valid for 9 of 10 job groups, both valid for only 1 • But both tests were required…

10. Key points from Griggs & Albermarle • Discrimination is based on consequences, not motives • It doesn’t matter if there was no intent to discriminate • Business necessity: if an employer’s practices discriminate, they must demonstrate that they are vital for the business’ success • Set standards for validation research • Just doing the validity study isn’t enough • Established “great deference” to EEOC guidelines for how to handle such cases

11. Key points from Griggs & Albermarle • These cases also set up a procedure for litigating future cases • The initial burden is on the plaintiff – they must demonstrate that there has been adverse impact • Prima facie violation: hiring rates not reflective of population as a whole • 4/5ths rule violation: minority groups must be hired at 80% of the rate of the majority group

12. Key points from Griggs & Albermarle • The burden of proof then shifts to the defendant: the company must show that their selection procedure is job related • Then the burden shifts back to the plaintiff: they must show that there are other means of achieving the employer’s need with less adverse impact

13. Other notable cases • Spurlock v. United Airlines (1972): upheld airline’s college degree requirement • Hyland v. Fukada (1978): ruled that felons convicted of armed robbery could be excluded from security work • U.S. v. Buffalo (1978): upheld HS diploma requirement for police officers

14. Other notable cases • Dothard v. Rawlinson (1977): exclusion of female prison guards first because of height & weight req’s, then based solely on gender • Boyd v. Ozark Airlines (1977): exclusion of shorter pilots because they cannot safely operate all cockpit equipment • Horace v. Pontiac (1980): exclusion of shorter police officers, height was a proxy for strength & respect • Fitzpatrick v. Atlanta (1993): disallowed firefighters from having beards for equipment safety reasons

15. Other notable cases • Connecticut v. Teal (1982) • Use of multiple hurdle strategy for hiring • More black applicants were hired at the end, but still violated 4/5ths rule early on • Individual equality over group equality • Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986) • Established that sexual harassment constitutes differential treatment based on sex • If the environment is hostile, it is a violation even if not linked to concrete employment benedits • Company is liable if SH is reported, but they do nothing

16. Wards Cove vs. Atonio (1989) • Case was brought about by group of Eskimo and Asian cannery workers – lowest skilled jobs were filled by them while management was mostly white • Court ruled: • Lack of intent to discriminate means there was no issue • Increased the initial burden of proof on the plaintiff • Changed focus from business necessity to business justification – no longer needs to be job related • This largely undid parts of Griggs & Albemarle

17. Civil Rights Act of 1991 • Congress clarified law to counter increasingly conservative court rulings • Showing DI exists constitutes prima facie evidence • Burden or proof shifted back to company • If DT is shown, the company is in the best position to know why it’s necessary • The employer must then demonstrate that their practices are job related

18. Strategies for reducing adverse impact • Improve recruiting strategy for minority groups • Adverse impact depends on the selection ratio of each group, so having a larger pool of qualified applicants helps • Consider other relevant predictors • Cognitive ability shows largest group differences • Can incorporate personality, interpersonal skills, biodata, structured interviews, etc. which may increase validity • Use of video or computer technology to present test & collect responses • Minimizes issues due to reading/writing ability

19. Strategies for reducing adverse impact • Use specific measures of cognitive ability • See smaller differences than general CA • Useful for more complex jobs • Weigh various criterion facets differently • Job performance is multidimensional, focus on facets that are less cognitively loaded • Enhance face validity • How valid applicants view test, regardless of actual validity