HR Solutions
Testing
Introduction
Are you testing legally?
Testing is a widely used method of assessing
the work personality or job skills of an applicant or employee. From the
standpoint of what is legal, testing is also one of the more nettlesome
phases of human resource management.
You should never assume that you must
use testing. Many employers engage in no formal testing whatsoever, and
flourish without it. Therefore testing is like a pension or profit sharing
plan - - - you are under no obligation to develop and implement one, but
once you do numerous legal issues come into play, and there are good reasons
to have it.
The numerous laws governing employee relations,
from federal and state legislation and regulations prohibiting
discrimination to common law theories such as invasion of privacy and
defamation, challenge employers to adopt testing practices that both carry
out the testing objectives and avoid legal liability when an examinee raises
a challenge in court.
Discrimination
Disparate Impact
A few cases have addressed the question of whether the use of personality
tests had an adverse impact on protected individuals. See, e.g., Colbert
v. H-K Corp., 4 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 529, 530 (N.D. Ga. 1971)
(intelligence and personality tests upheld as reasonably related to job
performance) 8
Generally, adverse impact claims have risen in the context of ability and
aptitude tests. Although public sector employers such as fire departments
and police departments frequently appear in this litigation, private sector
employers can also be involved. The Seventh Circuit held that an employer's
aptitude test had a disparate impact on Hispanic job applicants because
there was no significant correlation between an applicant's test
score and his ability to perform the duties of an entry-level manager.
Melendez v. Illinois Bell Tel. Co., 79 F.3d 661, 665-669 (7th Cir.
1996). The plaintiff's expert in this case testified that the aptitude
tests could "predict a person's job performance only 3 percent better than
chance alone." Id. at 665.
There are different methods by which a job applicant or employee may show
adverse impact. The most common approach is the comparison between the
percentage of minority applicants successfully passing a personality or
aptitude test and the percentage of majority applicants successfully passing
the tests.
In order to establish a prima facie case, the applicant or employee
must establish adverse impact with a significant sample of minority
applicants. If the sample size is small, the court may reject the statistic
because a slight shift of a few scores would greatly alter the overall
disparity. However the court may accept a small sample if the complaining
employee has other evidence of discrimination such as a history of minority
exclusion. See, e.g., Rogers v. Int'l Paper Co., 510 F.2d 1340, 1356
(8th Cir.), rev'd on other grounds, 423 U.S. 809 (1975) (small
minority sample enough to establish adverse impact when evidence of past
discrimination shown).
Along with an adequate sample size, the complaining employee must also
establish that the adverse impact is "substantial." Using the
applicant-statistic approach, for example, the court examines the ratio of
the majority pass rate to the minority pass rate. See 29 C.F.R. §
1607, i.e., the Uniform Guidelines of Selection Procedure (the
"Guidelines").
The Guidelines were developed by the Office of
Federal Contract Compliance and the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission. They do not have the force of law but are given deference by
most courts. The Guidelines provide that to establish an adverse impact
claim, the minority pass rate must be less than 80 percent of the majority
pass rate. 29 C.F.R. § 1607.4(D) ("[a] selection rate for any race, sex, or
ethnic group which is less than four-fifths … (or 80 percent) of the rate
for the group with the highest rate will generally be regarded by the
federal enforcement agencies as evidence of adverse impact, while a greater
than four-fifths rate will generally not be regarded as evidence of adverse
impact").
Once an employee establishes a prima facie case of disparate impact under
Title VII, or the Human Rights Act, the employer must show that the test is
job-related. Does it measure what it is supposed to measure? Does the
measurement relate to the job? See, e.g., Graffam v. Scott Paper Co.,
870 F. Supp. 389, 399-403 (D.Me. 1994) (selection criteria chosen to
implement reduction in force were job related, where psychologist testified
that all criteria used except that of specific technical skills described
job behaviors required in managerial and technical jobs), aff'd, 60F.3d 809
(1st Cir. 1995). In order to meet the job-relatedness requirement, the
employer must show the scored test relates to the job at issue, i.e., the
test must be validated. In other words, the test scores must correlate with
some other measure of what the test is used for.
There are three recognized methods by which an
employer may show validation: (1) criterion validation; (2) content
validation; and (3) construct validation. 29 C.F.R. § 1607.5 (A).
Criterion validation compares success on the test with success on
critical or important job duties. Criterior related tests measure traits or
characteristics deemed relevant to future job performance, e.g., an
intelligence test. According to the Guidelines, a criterion validation
study is "technically feasible" when: (1) a substantial number of
individuals are included in the validation study; (2) a range of scores on
the selection procedure and job performance measures can be obtained that is
sufficiently representative of the normally expected ranges; and (3)
reliable and valid measures of job performance are available. See 29 C.F.R.
§ 1607.5. If these three conditions are present, an employer is more likely
to obtain a statistically significant result.
Employers can use content validation when the test measures skills a
job requires; for example, a typing exam for a typist position would prove
content validation. See 29 C.F.R. § 1607.14 (C). This form of validation is
often utilized for aptitude testing, but is not applicable to personality
testing because such tests do not measure skills or job knowledge.
Construct validation necessitates a relationship between satisfactory
job performance and a specific construct or trait. Examples of
construct-validated tests would be those measuring as honesty and integrity,
or human relations skills required to perform effectively as a customer
service representative, as well as accurate measurement of the trait by the
test. See 29 C.F.R. § 1607.14(D). This method of validation is the most
appropriate for personality testing, because it focuses on the link between
the particular trait and projected performance on the job.
To minimize liability with respect to testing,
consider these points:
-
Is the test really necessary?
What is the objective your organization is attempting to achieve? If
you believe the test can enhance your screening process, you should
document the business necessity for the test.
-
Ask your test developer to hold
you harmless and indemnify your organization for discriminatory
challenges to the test and any damages that may result from the test’s
usage. This indemnification should include paying the employer’s
reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in defending any legal challenge to
a test.
-
Even if the test being used has
been validated, maintain statistics to monitor for adverse impact. If
adverse impact occurs, take steps to eliminate the impact or consider
alternative screening measures.
-
Administer the test on a
provisional basis while monitoring the test for adverse impact. If
impact occurs, follow the procedure in the preceding paragraph before
the test as a formal screening device.
The federal
Americans with Disabilities Act, prohibits all testing at the
pre-employment stage that pertains to mental and physical disabilities or
conditions. This means that mental and physical examinations are illegal
before the offer of hire is made (although highly sensitive safety positions
are exceptions, and drug testing is permitted).
What legal issues must an employer consider,
when administering tests to applicants or employees? Although there is a
formidable assortment of laws out there, basic notions of fairness apply
whenever you engage in testing. Here is a checklist of questions. Y(yes) or
N(no) are indicated where appropriate:
Drug Testing
(GO TO THE DRUG TESTING SECTION)
