ON AUGUST 22, 1978, THE UNIFORM GUIDELINES ON EMPLOYEE SELECTION PROCEDURES (GUIDELINES) WERE ADOPTED BY THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, THE OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, AND THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND JUSTICE
The Guidelines contain the requirements to establish validity (business necessity/job relatedness). A business necessity exists in a selection standard if it improves an employer’s ability to deliver their products or services by increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of their workers.
If a selection procedure can be shown to improve the job performance of selected workers, it is a legal “test” within the meaning of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Guidelines also established three equally acceptable validity strategies.
Content Validity – is obtained by demonstrating a logical or rational relationship between the content of the selection process and the content of the job. In other words, documentation must show everything in the selection process is job related. Content validity is established by performing and documenting a job analysis and directly relating all aspects of the test or other selection process to the results of the job analysis. Does the Scheig Hiring & Performance System™ meet this standard of validity? YES
Criterion Validity – is established by showing a statistically significant (.05 or better) relationship between the scores in a selection process and a measure of job performance. Does the Scheig Hiring & Performance System meet this standard of validity? YES
Construct Validity – is based on an inference about the test scores as a measure of a construct of intellectual, perceptual, or psychomotor ability, motivation, or personality. As with criterion validity, a statically significant relationship must be demonstrated to show validity. It is important to understand that the validity requirement applies not just to testing but to any and all parts of the selection process. Does the Scheig Hiring & Performance System meet this standard of validity? NO
The Scheig Associates Hiring & Performance System fully complies with the federal Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (1978).
THE ISSUE HERE IS WHETHER OR NOT WE COMPLY WITH THE TESTING REQUIREMENTS AS OUTLINED BY THE FEDERAL HIRING GUIDELINES (1978) THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 HAD SIGNIFICANT IMPLICATIONS FOR THE KINDS OF “TESTS” THAT EMPLOYERS USED IN THE SELECTION AND PROMOTION PROCESS. THE IMPLICATIONS WERE SPELLED OUT IN THE GUIDELINES AND TWO AGENCIES WERE ESTABLISHED TO MONITOR EMPLOYERS WITH REGARD TO HIRING AND DISCRIMINATION.
The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Program (OFCCP) covers any business doing business with the government however far removed. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) monitors everyone else with a few restrictions.
The EEOC’s job is to make sure that employers do not unfairly discriminate against members of protected classes: minorities, females, and those over 40 years of age. They use what is known as the “4/5 rule of thumb” as an indicator that employers, whether intentionally or not are discriminatory in their hiring and selection practices. This may also be described as the “80% rule”. For assessment purposes, members of protected classes should pass at a rate of 80% or higher to that of the dominate group. Anything less than that is taken as indication of discrimination or adverse impact, i.e., the assessment or procedure is “adversely impacting” the hiring or promotion of members of protected classes.
Contrary to popular belief, the law does not require that a particular “test” for employment not produce an adverse impact. The employer does, after all, have a vested interest in hiring the best possible employees who meet real job qualifications. Consequently, what the guidelines require is that if an adverse impact occurs as a result of some selection or promotional system, it is incumbent on the employer to show that the procedure or test is job related (valid). Our assessments tend not to produce an adverse impact, but even so, are highly defensible in that it would be very difficult to be any more job related. Because we can defend the validity (job relatedness) of our assessments, we frequently indemnify users of our assessments from any EEOC or OFCCP law judgment that our assessments create an unlawful adverse impact against members of protected classes.
Most companies of any size, by law, have developed Affirmative Action Plans which OFCCP and EEOC review to see that effort and, indeed, compliance with the law is being made. These plans look at protected class population in a given geographical area and require that companies hire to roughly reflect those percentages. This, as you might imagine, can put a good deal of pressure on those companies. Our assessments actually introduce validity to the hiring process and produce less of an adverse impact than what is currently occurring. Our assessments are tools which can be used to hire qualified members of protected classes and help the employer meet their affirmative action plans.