Testing

Members of protected group flunk job test? Make sure bosses aren’t manipulating system

05/02/2011

If your pool of qualified applicants is demographically significantly different than your hires, there may be trouble afoot. Don’t count on pre-employment job tests to automatically create fair hiring. If a quick internal audit shows that particular departments or managers have considered but not hired members of a protected class, you may want to look at whether the testing is being handled properly.

What can we ask job applicants? We want to make sure they can physically perform the work

04/20/2011

Q. We are looking to hire several new workers in our receiving department. The job will require lifting heavy boxes. Can we ask applicants about any current medical conditions or disabilities that would prevent them from doing so? Can we ask applicants to pass a physical test to see if they can fulfill the requisite job duties?

Weed out substance abuse with ‘one-strike’ rule

04/20/2011

Many employers have adopted strict drug and alcohol testing programs for all new hires—and strictly bar employment of anyone who tests positive. Now the 9th Circuit has ruled that applying the rule to a recovering addict is legal unless that addict can somehow prove that the rule discriminates against a class of disabled individuals—namely, recovering addicts.

Courts to serial litigants: Enough is enough! Lawsuit-happy employees may face fines

04/06/2011

Some employees and applicants think that if they sue often enough, they’ll eventually end up collecting the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Fortunately, judges don’t like wasting valuable courtroom time on meritless cases. More and more, they are blocking efforts to file additional lawsuits by employees acting as their own lawyers.

Dayton revises police exam following race bias settlement

03/31/2011

As part of a settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice, the city of Dayton has revised its police entrance examination. The DOJ and Dayton had settled a 2009 suit involving allegations that the city discriminated against black applicants who applied for jobs in both the police and fire departments.

Require medical exams if they’re job-related

03/18/2011

You may have read that employers aren’t permitted to force employees to take medical exams because they could reveal a disability. While pre-employment, pre-job-offer medical exams are barred, there are times when medical exams are fine. The key is whether the exams are job-related and consistent with business necessity.

When administering job tests, ensure they’re job-related and fair to all employees

03/14/2011

Be wary of employment tests that seem to have a disparate impact on members of a protected class. You must be ready to show the tests are valid and focus on the real skills required to do a job.

Bias lawsuit alert: If you use job tests, your legal team better include statisticians, too!

02/09/2011

Employment tests generally are a legal minefield. If members of a protected class score significantly lower than other groups, you can expect a lawsuit alleging the test had a disparate impact. And as the following case shows, even court-approved testing procedures are no protection.

No requirement to tell about drug retest rights

01/28/2011

North Carolina has stringent rules to ensure that employers test their employees for drug use in an accurate and reliable way. The law requires retaining enough of the blood or urine sample so a second test can be conducted if necessary. However, the law doesn’t require employers to tell employees about their retesting rights.

No private ‘do-over’ if applicant flunks test