Abstract
Purpose
This paper reviews a decade of employment litigation to illuminate the most legally dangerous selection devices and employment practices.
Design/Methodology/Approach
A sample (n = 312) of court cases drawn from 10 years of Bloomberg BNA case briefs was analyzed to determine which selection tools (e.g., biographical information blank, interview, cognitive ability test, and psychomotor test) and which selection processes (e.g., violations of the four-fifths rule, administrative inconsistencies, lack of documentation, failure to provide accommodations) are most at risk for litigation for unfair employment practices.
Findings
Results demonstrate that while some selection tools do attract legal scrutiny, dangerous hiring practices such as favoritism against protected classes and improper human resource documentation put employers at far greater risk of suit. When considering cases settled outside of court and those that continued to trial, the data reveal that employers lose employment discrimination cases at a rate nearing 90 % and suffer an average payout of over $1.5 million per case.
Implications
Just as legal challenges once drove the search for selection tools free of adverse impact, the current legal landscape demonstrates the necessity of fair and consistent selection processes. This paper provides evidence of common mistakes in implementing selection systems—mistakes that lead to costly legal battles.
Originality/Value
This paper reduces cumbersome legal records into useful evidence of trends in recent employment law cases. Selection system designers and organizations who implement them will benefit from avoiding the risky hiring practices presented in this paper.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allen v. Tobacco Superstore (2007). 475 F.3d 931 (8th Cir. 2007).
Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Personality and performance at the beginning of the new millennium: What do we know and where do we go next? International Journal of Selection & Assessment, 9(1/2), 9–30.
Berry, C. M., Sackett, P. R., & Wiemann, S. (2007). A review of recent developments in integrity test research. Personnel Psychology, 60(2), 271–301.
Bertua, C., Anderson, N., & Salgado, J. F. (2005). The predictive validity of cognitive ability tests: A UK meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78(3), 387–409.
Brown v. Alabama Dep’t of Transp (2010). 11th Cir., No. 08-14371.
Bumphus v. Timec (1998). N.D. Cal., No. C-96-03585 SI.
Cascio, W. F. (1998). Applied Psychology in Human Resource Management (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Commissioner Tucker v. Nob Hill General Stores (1998). EEOC, Charge No. 370-94-0117.
Coward, W. M., & Sackett, P. R. (1990). Linearity of ability-performance relationships: A reconfirmation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 297–300.
Dennis v. Columbia Colleton Medical Center (2009). 290 F.3d 639 (4th Cir. 2002).
Dunlap v. Tennessee Valley Authority (2008). 206 F.8a 121 (6th Cir. 2008).
EEOC v. Americall Group (2008). N.D. Ill., No. 04-C-5554.
EEOC v. AMR Eagle Inc. (2000). N.D. Tex., No. 3:98-CV-0763-M
EEOC v. Consumers Energy (2001). No. 98-70846.
EEOC v. Griffith Rubber Mills (1998). N.D. Ind., No. 98-CV-0183.
EEOC v. Mike Fink Corporation (2010). M.D. Tenn., No. 3-96-0790.
EEOC v. NationsBank of Tennessee (2001). E.D. Tenn., No. 3:00-CV-170.
EEOC v. Phoenix Suns (2003). D. Ariz., No. CIV 02-0963 PHX JAT.
EEOC v. Razzoo’s (2008). N.D. Tex., No. 3:05-cv-0562-P.
Gaugler, B. B., Rosenthal, D. B., Thornton, G. C., & Bentson, C. (1987). Meta-analysis of assessment center validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 493–511.
Gilliland, S. W. (1994). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to a selection system. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 691–701.
Hartman v. Albright (2000). No. CA 77-2019 JR.
Hill v. Merrill Gardens (2005). N.D. Ind., No. 1:04-cv-00248-TLS-RBC.
Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96(1), 72–98.
Levy, P. E. (2010). Industrial Organizational Psychology: Understanding the organization (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Wadsworth.
McHenry, J. J., Hough, L. M., Toquam, J. L., Hanson, M. A., & Ashworth, S. (1990). Project a validity results: The relationship between predictor and criterion domains. Personnel Psychology, 43, 336–354.
Plyburn, K. M., Ployhart, R. E., & Kravitz, D. A. (2008). The diversity-validity dilemma: overview and legal context. Personnel Psychology, 61, 143–151.
Port Authority Asian Jade Society v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (2010). 05 Civ. 3835.
Potence v. Hazleton Area School District (2004). No. 03-1535, 03-2647.
Roth, P. L., Bobko, P., & McFarland, L. A. (2005). A meta-analysis of work sample test validity: Updating and integrating some classic literature. Personnel Psychology, 58(4), 1009–1037.
Salgado, J. F., & Anderson, N. (2003). Validity generalization of GMA tests across countries in the European community. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 12(1), 1–17.
Terpstra, D. E., Mohamed, A. A., & Kethley, R. B. (1999). An analysis of federal court cases involving nine selection devices. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 7(1), 26–34.
Twomey, D. P. (2005). Employment discrimination law: A manager’s guide (6th ed.). Mason, OH: Thomson/South-Western.
Ulrich, L., & Trumbo, D. (1965). The selection interview since 1949. Psychological Bulletin, 63(2), 100–116.
United States v. Baltimore City Public Schools (2001). D. Md., No. 01 CV 4187.
Williamson, L. G., Campion, J. E., Malos, S. B., Roehling, M. V., & Campion, M. A. (1997). Employment interview on trial: Linking interview structure with litigation outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 900–912.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Williams, K.Z., Schaffer, M.M. & Ellis, L.E. Legal Risk in Selection: An Analysis of Processes and Tools. J Bus Psychol 28, 401–410 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9299-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9299-4