Cybervetting is the latest symptom of a deeper problem

• Published in: Industrial and organizational psychology Vol. 15; no. 3; pp. 342 - 347
• Main Author: Brink, Kyle E.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: New York, USA Cambridge University Press 01.09.2022
• Subjects: Affirmative action; Americans with Disabilities Act 1990-US; Associations; Background checks; Commentaries; Employees; Employers; Employment discrimination; Hiring; Job performance; Personnel selection
• DOI: 10.1017/iop.2022.46
• ISSN: 1754-9426

Broad federal laws prohibit discrimination related to several protected classes including race, color, national origin, sex, and religion (under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964); age (under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967); and disability (under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990). [...]if cybervetting is used to make selection decisions (such as who does or does not advance to the next step in the selection process, who is or is not extended a job offer, etc.), then it is subject to these employment discrimination laws. (2022) provide a compelling argument for why adverse impact would be expected with the typical unreliable, casual, unsystematic, “fuzzy” cybervetting selection process. [...]it would be prudent for organizations to assume that, if the cybervetting selection procedure is challenged, plaintiffs would prevail in showing adverse impact. [...]in anticipation of the potential need for a Phase 2 defense, organizations should ensure that the use of cybervetting is valid and job related. Plaintiffs could also prevail by identifying more structured, standardized, and reliable methods of administering the selection procedure. [...]if organizations insist on using cybervetting as part of the selection process, it behooves them to make the process as fair and reliable as possible.