ALTERNATIVE EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES: A CALL TO ARMS

When Title VII of the Civil Rights Act was amended fifteen years ago, it explicitly allowed employers to be liable for refusing to adopt alternative employment practices. This article discusses the unstructured interview, which is the most common hiring technique. Cognitive ability tests provide a d...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inLabor law journal (Chicago) Vol. 58; no. 1; p. 39
Main Authors Rudin, Joel P, Gover, Kathryn L
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Riverwoods CCH Incorporated: Health & Human Resources 01.04.2007
Subjects
Ability tests
Accuracy
Assessment centers
Civil rights
Civil Rights Act 1991-US
Cognitive ability
Employee promotions
Employers
Employment
Employment interviews
Employment policies
Gender
Hiring
Human resource management
Intelligence tests
Interviews
Mentors
Workplace diversity
United States > US
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:When Title VII of the Civil Rights Act was amended fifteen years ago, it explicitly allowed employers to be liable for refusing to adopt alternative employment practices. This article discusses the unstructured interview, which is the most common hiring technique. Cognitive ability tests provide a demonstrably better alternative causing less disparate impact. Then it turn to informal mentoring, the most common promotion technique. Assessment centers provide a demonstrably better alternative causing less disparate impact. When organizations update their hiring and promotion practices, they will be insulated from disparate impact lawsuits in two ways. First, they will more readily be able to demonstrate that their employment practices are job-related and consistent with business necessity. Second, they will have less disparate impact. They will have no choice but to hire and promote a more diverse workforce, because they never had valid reasons to screen out so many women and minorities.
ISSN:0023-6586