Part 1 An Overview of Human Resource Selection
CHAPTER
2
Human Resource
Measurement in Selection
PowerPoint Presentation by Charles Cook • The University of West Alabama
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
Key Points
• The basic principles of federal regulation of HR
activities
• An overview of the specific laws and executive
orders appropriate to selection
• The types of evidence used in deciding when
discrimination has occurred
• The types and characteristics of affirmative action
programs
• Major court cases in selection
• The most important legal issues to consider in
developing and implementing a selection program
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
2–2
FIGURE 2.1 Regulatory Model of EEO
SOURCE: Adapted from James Ledvinka and Vida G. Scarpello, Federal Regulation of Personnel and Human Resources Management, 2d ed.
(Boston: PWS Kent Publishing Co. 1991), 18.
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
2–3
TABLE 2.1
Major EEO Laws and Executive Orders
Regarding Selection
Title VII Civil Rights Act of 1964
Civil Rights Act of 1991
Executive Order No. 11246
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
ADA Amendments Act of 2008
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986
U.S. Constitution 5th Amendment
U.S. Constitution 14th Amendment
Civil Rights Act of 1866
Civil Rights Act of 1871
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
2–4
EEO Discrimination Complaint Process
Discrimination Charge
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
No-Fault Settlement
Investigation
Probable Cause
Statement
Conciliation
Litigation
No Probable Cause
Statement
Right-to-Sue Notice
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
2–5
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
• Definition of Disability
 A disabled individual



has a physical or mental impairment that substantially
limits one or more major life activities
has a record of such an impairment
is regarded as having such an impairment.
 Excluded groups:

Homosexuals and bisexuals; transvestites, transsexuals,
pedophiles, exhibitionists, voyeurists, and those with other
sexual behavior disorders; compulsive gamblers,
kleptomaniacs, pyromaniacs, and those currently using
illegal drugs.
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
2–6
Reasonable Accommodation
• Reasonable Accommodation
 An organization is required to make changes in the
work process for an otherwise qualified individual with
a disability unless it would pose “undue hardship”
• Qualified Individuals with a Disability
 Meet the job-related requirements of a position
 Can, with or without reasonable accommodation,
perform the essential functions of the job
• “Undue Hardship” Exception
 Nature and cost of the accommodation
 Ability of parent employer to bear costs
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
2–7
Essential Job Functions (Activities)
• An activity could be considered essential if:
 The position exists to perform the activity.
 Only a limited number of other employees are
available to perform the activity or among whom the
activity can be distributed.
 The activity is highly specialized, and the person in
the position is hired for the special expertise or ability
to perform it.
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
2–8
Employment Discrimination
• Forms of Discrimination
 Disparate treatment

Situations in which different standards are applied to various
groups of individuals even though there may not be an
explicit statement of intentional prejudice.
 Disparate impact

Organizational selection standards are applied uniformly to all
groups of applicants, but the net result of these standards is
to produce differences in the selection of various groups.
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
2–9
Disparate Treatment
• McDonnell Douglas Rule
 A guideline for establishing a prima facie case
 The plaintiff must show that the following conditions
exist:




He or she belongs to a protected class.
He or she applied and was qualified for a job for which the
company was seeking applicants.
Despite these qualifications, he or she was rejected.
After this rejection, the position remained open and the
employer continued to seek applicants from persons with the
complainant’s qualifications
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
2–10
Disparate Impact
• Burden-of-Proof Defenses for Employers
 Business necessity

Application is limited to safety of workers and customers
 Bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ)

Disqualification of a demographic group from employment
because no one person from that group could adequately or
appropriately perform the job
 Validity


A plausible business reason
Demonstrated job-relatedness of selection procedure
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
2–11
TABLE 2.2
Presentation of Evidence in Title VII
Discrimination Cases
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
2–12
The Use of Statistics
• Stock Statistics
 Compare the percentages of specific internal and
external demographic groups of workers at one point
in time.
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
2–13
FIGURE 2.2 Revised EEO-1 Form
SOURCE: Federal Register, November 28, 2005 (70 FR 712 94).
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
2–14
The Use of Statistics (cont’d)
• Relevant Labor Market (RLM)
 The percentage of a specific
demographic group in an
appropriate external comparison
group of workers
 Group component determinants


Geographical location
Skill level
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
2–15
TABLE 2.3
Some Relevant Labor Markets Used for
Statistical Comparisons
• General population data
• Labor force data (civilian, nonfarm, or total)
• Qualified labor market data
• Actual applicant flow data
• Qualified actual applicant flow data
• Employer’s own workforce composition
(promotion cases)
• Employer’s own qualified and interested
workforce composition (promotion cases)
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
2–16
The Use of Statistics (cont’d)
• Flow Statistics
 Compare proportions taken from numbers gathered at
two different points in time—before and after selection
has taken place—to determine how minority members
fared in the selection process in comparison to
nonminority members.
 Are used to determine if differences between the
proportions is of sufficient significance to constitute
evidence of discrimination.
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
2–17
The Use of Statistics (cont’d)
• Flow Statistics (cont’d)
 Four-fifths rule

The ratio of any group must be at least 80 percent of the ratio
of the most favorably treated group.
 Standard deviation rule
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
2–18
Definition of an Internet Applicant
• The person must submit an expression of interest in
employment
• The organization is considering employing the
individual for a particular position.
• The individual’s expression of interest indicates that
the person possesses the basic qualifications for the
position.
• The individual must not remove herself from
consideration for the position.
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
2–19
The Uniform Guidelines on Employee
Selection (1978)
• The Guidelines
 represent the combined viewpoints of several federal
agencies:




Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
Civil Service Commission
Department of Labor
Department of Justice
 Are not laws and are not legally binding
 Are used as references for court decisions
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
2–20
Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection
(1978)
• Guidelines address:
 The determination of adverse (disparate) impact
 The types of selection methods covered by the
Guidelines
 Defenses for selection programs
 Selection requirements and outcomes
 Which job performance measures can be used to
demonstrate validity
 Record keeping requirements
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
2–21
Affirmative Action Programs (AAP)
• Affirmation Action
 Specific actions taken by an organization to actively
seek out and remove unintended barriers to fair
treatment in order to achieve equal opportunity.
• Affirmative Action Plan
 A written document that explicitly states steps to be
taken, information to be gathered, and the general
baseline for decision making for each area of HRM
 A guideline for actions to ensure that EEO principles
are implemented within the organization.
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
2–22
Types of Affirmative Action Programs
• Reasons for Adopting an AAP:
 The organization is a government contractor


AAP is required for firms with $10,000 in federal contracts
Office of Federal Contract Compliance (OFCCP) oversees
AAP development and administration
 Court order (losing a court discrimination case) or
signing a consent decree


legally required to balance internal workforce with the
relevant labor market
May require preferential treatment to minority groups to
achieve goals or quotas within specific timetables
 Voluntarily attempting to implement EEO principles

Avoidance of reverse discrimination is problematic
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
2–23
Affirmative Action Programs (AAP) (cont’d)
• Opportunity Enhancement AAPs
 Focused recruitment or training directed toward target
groups
• Equal Opportunity AAPs
 Forbid assigning negative weights to members of
target groups
• Tiebreak AAPs
 Members of target groups are given advantage only
in selection situations in which applicants are tied
• Strong Preferential AAPs
 Give preference to target group members even if they
have inferior qualifications
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
2–24
TABLE 2.4
Key Issues in Major Selection Court Cases
Griggs v. Duke Power (1971)
1. Lack of discriminatory intent not sufficient defense
2. Selection test must be job related if adverse
impact results
3. Employer bears burden of proof in face of
apparent adverse impact
U.S. v. Georgia Power (1973)
1. Validation strategy must comply with EEOC
guidelines
2. Validation must include affected groups
3. Validation must reflect selection decision practices
4. Testing must occur under standardized conditions
Spurlock v. United Airlines (1972)
1. College degree and experience requirements are
shown to be job related
2. Company’s burden of proof diminishes as human
risks increase
Watson v. Ft. Worth
Bank & Trust (1988)
1. Cases focusing on subjective selection devices,
such as interviews and judgments, could be heard
as disparate impact
2. Organization may need to validate interview in
same manner as objective test
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
2–25
TABLE 2.4
Rudder v. District
of Columbia (1995)
Key Issues in Major Selection Court Cases
(cont’d)
1. Content validity is acceptable defense for adverse
impact
2. Job analysis, ensuring adequate representation of
minority groups in data collection, is essential
3. Clear links must be shown between job analysis
information, test questions, and correct answers
4. Attention to test security and administration are
important
Ricci v. DeStefano (2009) 1. Adverse impact present as blacks scored lower
on tests than whites and Hispanics
2. Discrimination directed toward whites and Hispanics
3. Threat of lawsuit not defense for disregarding job-related
selection tests
4. Adverse impact can be defended by job relatedness of
selection tests
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
2–26
TABLE 2.4
Key Issues in Major Selection Court Cases
(cont’d)
OFCCP v. Ozark Air
Lines (1986)
1. In disability cases, organization must prove that
individual cannot perform job
2. Reasonable accommodation must be given to
disabled individual
Gross v. FBL Financial
Services (2009)
1. Central question – how much evidence must plaintiff
produce in age discrimination claim to force defendant to
provide evidence that it did not use age in decision
2. Plaintiff must provide clear evidence that age was “but-for”
reason in decision
3. Ruling significantly increases the amount of evidence that
plaintiff must provide to obtain judgment that age
discrimination occurred
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
2–27
EEO Summary
• Major Legal Concepts Regarding Discrimination
 Basis of Discrimination
 Evidence of Discrimination
 Options of the Organization
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
2–28
Key Terms and Concepts
• Discrimination charge
• Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC)
• Office of Federal Contract
Compliance (OFCCP)
• Disability
• Reasonable accommodation
• Undue hardship
• Essential job function
• Disparate treatment
• Disparate impact
• McDonnell Douglas Rule
• Burden of proof
• Business necessity
• Bona fide occupational
qualification (BFOQ)
• Validity
• Four-Fifths Rule
• Standard Deviation Rule
• Stock statistics
• Relevant labor market (RLM)
• Flow statistics
• Internet applicant
• The Uniform Guidelines on
Employee Selection (1978)
• Affirmative Action Programs
(APPs)
©2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.
2–29