EEO Law/Legal Flashcards
Civil Rights Act of 1964
Equal Employment Opportunity Specifically, Title VII Monitored by the EEOC Must offer equal opportunity regardless Race Color Religion Sex National Origin
consequences of discrimination
Suspension Government Contracts Back-Pay to entire class of discriminants Professional Image Impacted Recruiting difficulties Tenure difficulties
Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Exceptions
Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications (BFOQs) Seniority Systems Pre-employment Inquiries Testing Preferential Treatment Veterans’ Preference Rights National Security
Civil Rights Act of 1991
Monetary Damages & Jury Trials
Compensatory & punitive limited to nonpublic employers
Adverse Impact (Unintentional Discrimination) Cases
Protection in Foreign Countries
Racial Harassment
Consent Decree Challenges
Mixed Motives
Seniority Systems
Race Norming & Affirmative Action
Extension to U. S. Senate & Appointed Officials
Equal Pay Act of 1963
Amends FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act) of 1938 Equal pay for equal work Monitored by the EEOC Exceptions allowed: Seniority Merit Quantity / quality production Any pay differential based on anything except gender
Employment Act of 1967
Age discrimination prohibited
Over 40 with
Recorded satisfactory work
Discharged in spite of satisfactory work &
position filled with a younger person
Monitored by the EEOC
Valid only if proven business necessity
Americans w/ Disabilities Act of 1990
15 or more employees
Physical or mental impairments
Or perceived as such
Monitored/enforced by EEOC
Judicial General Principles
Everyone hired at same time must receive equal opportunities
Employers bear burden of proof
Reverse discrimination also prohibited
Intent behind hiring practices irrelevant; if discrimination results, it is illegal
Job-related tests & measuring devices are legal
Judicial test development standards
Job analysis based Job relatedness verified Reliable results Unbiased job performance measures Predictive validity minorities & nonminorities
list major cases for adverse impact
Griggs vs Duke Power 1971
Albermarle v. Moody 1975
When is adverse impact legal?
list Supreme Court cases relevant to ADEA, and what precedent they set
Smith vs. City of Jackson (2005)
Meacham vs. KAPL (2008).
Determined that the defense for adverse impact is different for ADEA compared with Title VII.
protected classes under Title VII?
race, color, religion, sex, and national origin
which entities are covered under Title VII?
private, state, local, and federal entities that employ 15 or more employees in each of 20 weeks of current or prior year
ADEA: when was it passed, who does it cover?
1967; covers people age 40 and over
Griggs vs. Duke Power 1971 implications
- The concept of covert discrimination – employers are accountable for discrimination even if it was unintentional
- Employment and selection practices must be job related and predictive of performance
content validity and legal defensibility
according to the Uniform Guidelines, a selection procedure based on inferences about mental processes cannot supported solely or primarily on the basis of content validity . Content validity is not sufficient for demonstrating validity for psychological selection measures.
Guidelines and cut off scores
where cut off scores are used, they should normally be set so as to be reasonable and consistent with normal expectations of acceptable proficiency within the workforce.
discuss the 4/5 rule
rule of thumb for computing adverse impact. According to the UG, a selection rate for any race, sex, or ethnic group which is less than 80% of the rate for the group with the higher rate will be evidence of adverse impact.
Albemarle Paper Company vs. Moody
employed poor validation procedure when they could have easily done a better job with their validity study; do the best job with validity that can possibly be done with the given circumstances
list the Practical Principles that are consistent with the guidelines
- arbitrary use: do not use any professionally developed test without consultation
- JA: treat JA as a prerequisite for any validation effort
- Technical advances: stay abreast of the major advances in the field of psychometrics
- statistical disparities: irrespective of legal meanings, investigate all statistical disparities
- technical feasibility: Do the best that can be done under existing circumstances
List methods for minimizing adverse impact
subgroup norming banding alternative tests manipulating test content discarding test results
court rulings pertinent to methods for reducing adverse impact
alternative tests: endorsed in Johnson vs. City of Memphis (2006)
manipulating test content: endorse in Hayden vs. Nassau County (1995(
Discarding tests: struck down in Ricci vs. DeStefano (2009)
Race-Conscious banding
no court has upheld race preference as the sole basis for selection from within bands; it must accompany other considerations. Also, most rulings favoring race conscious banding have featured court ordered attempts to prevent or resolve class action lawsuits ; in summary, There are some instances where restricted forms of race conscious banding have been supported, but usually involve consent decrees. Race can’t be the sole basis for selection in basically any case though.
what do the Uniform Guidelines say about using alternative selection procedures as a method of reducing adverse impact?
use the procedure that has less adverse impact when 2 or more procedures are equally valid
United States vs. Georgia Power (1973)
validation strategy must comply with EEO guidelines
validation must include affected groups
testing must be standardized
Connecticut vs. Teal
a company must examine every part of a multi step selection program for adverse impact
Rudder vs. District of Columbia
content validity is acceptable for defending adverse impact
job analysis and ensuring adequate representation of minority groups in data collection is essential
clear links must be shown between JA information test questions and correct answers
major laws affecting EEO
Equal Pay Act 1963 Title VII 1964 ADEA 1967 EEOC Act 1972 Pregnancy Discrimination 1978 ADA 1990 Civil Rights Act 1991 Uniformed Services Act 1994
Equal Pay Act 1963
equal pay for equal work
merit, incentive pay, seniority exceptions
Title VII 1964
prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin
Minimum N for private employers = 15
EEOC Act 1972
expanded coverage to state and local governments and to public and private educational institutions
strengthened enforcement power of EEOC
ADA 1990
prohibits discrimination based on mental or physical disability or chronic illness
“reasonable accommodations”
minimum n for private = 15
Civil Rights Act 1991
Allows compensatory and punitive damages for intentional discrimination
Established maximum damages, based on organization size
Uniform Guidelines: adverse impact
Rejection (for all areas of employment) of a significantly higher percentage of a protected group in the population under consideration
The 4/5ths rule
- Determine selection rate for each group
- Selection rate for the protected group should be at least 80% of that for the unprotected group, or the company is at legal risk.
Standard deviation analysis and other statistical procedures
Uniform Guidelines: The McDonnell Douglas Test
a test of adverse impact
- The person is a member of a protected class.
- The person applied for a job for which he or she was qualified.
- The person was rejected, despite being qualified.
- After rejection, the employer continued to seek other applicants with similar qualifications.
Uniform Guidelines: Workforce Utilization Analysis
The process of classifying protected class members by number and type of job held
Albemarle Paper vs. Moody 1975 implications
Placed stronger requirement on employers to demonstrate the job-relatedness of tests.
Wards Cove Packing vs. Antonio implications
at the time, Found that the charging party has the burden of proof
Statistical disparities alone are not enough, the disparities must be for qualified individuals
BUT
The Wards Cove case was largely overturned by the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
Hence, when a statistical disparity exists, the burden of proof is on the employer to demonstrate the job-relatedness of tests and selection practices.
Uniform Guidelines: list relevant court cases
Griggs vs. Duke Power 1971
Albemarle Paper vs. Moody 1975
Wards Cove Packing vs. Antonio
Sexual Harassment relevant court cases
Meritor Saying vs. Vinson 1986
Harris vs. Forklift Systems 1993
Burlington vs. Ellerth 1998
Meritor vs. Vinson 1986
Employers are guilty of hostile work environment when they know or should have known about unlawful conduct and did not take corrective action
Harris vs. Forklift Systems
The harassing action does not need to cause psychological injury
As long as a reasonable person would see it as hostile or abusive, it is illegal
Burlington vs. Ellerth 1998
Sexual harassment can take place even when there is no tangible job detriment
Bona Fide Occupational Qualification
BFOQ
Permits discrimination where employer hiring preferences are a reasonable necessity for the normal operation of a business.
Business necessity - a work-related practice that is necessary to the safe and efficient operation of an organization
