IOP 6100 Module 6 Written Assignment: Fairness and the Law in a New Bus Operator Selection System Example

Valid, Lawful and Fair: Testing a Transit Agency's Selection System Against the Law and Its Applicants

Student Name

Graduate Certificate in Industrial-Organizational Psychology, Thomas Edison State University

IOP-6100: Psychological Factors in Selecting and Growing Organizational Talent

Mentor Name

Month Day, Year

Valid, Lawful and Fair: Testing a Transit Agency's Selection System Against the Law and Its Applicants

The System Under Review

The redesigned process has five steps: an application with a short personality inventory, a 30-question written test on traffic rules and agency policies, the driving simulator, a structured interview and a final weighted score. The agency's applicant pool is diverse: in the last year, 52 percent of applicants were Black, 27 percent Hispanic, 16 percent white and 5 percent Asian or other groups. Many applicants speak English as a second language.

The Legal Framework

Title VII allows a selection practice with disparate impact on a protected group only if the employer shows it is tied to the job and justified by business necessity, and even then a plaintiff may prevail by showing an equally valid alternative with less impact that the employer refused to adopt (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k)). The doctrine began with Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971), in which the Supreme Court held that a rule requiring a high school diploma, along with two general aptitude tests, that excluded Black applicants at much higher rates were unlawful because they were not shown to relate to the jobs. Ricci v. DeStefano (2009) set a limit on the other side: the city of New Haven could not discard promotion test results because of their racial outcomes unless it had a strong basis in evidence that it would otherwise face disparate impact liability. The lesson is to design and validate carefully before using a test, not to adjust results afterward.

The Americans with Disabilities Act adds that tests and qualification standards that screen out people with disabilities must be shown to be tied to the job and required by business necessity (42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(6)), and employers must provide reasonable accommodations in testing.

Applicants' View of Fairness

Gilliland (1993) proposed that applicants judge selection systems on procedural rules, such as whether the tools seem related to the job, whether they have a chance to show what they can do and whether they receive explanations and timely feedback, as well as on the fairness of outcomes. Those perceptions affect whether applicants accept offers, recommend the employer and challenge decisions.

What the Review Found

The written test fell well below four-fifths for Hispanic applicants. A review showed its questions were written at roughly a twelfth-grade reading level, while the operator's actual reading demands, such as bulletins and route notices, are far simpler. The test was measuring reading speed in English more than knowledge of rules.

Changes

The rules test will be rewritten in plain wording a sixth grader could follow, and a second version will show traffic scenes on video and read each question aloud. A pilot of the revised version raised the impact ratio to 0.87 while keeping its correlation with training test scores. Applicants with disabilities can request accommodations, such as extra time, through a notice on every invitation. Every applicant will receive a short explanation of each step and feedback on which step ended their candidacy, responding to the procedural concerns Gilliland describes.

Ongoing Monitoring

Fairness is not settled once. Impact ratios will be calculated for each step every quarter, with a review triggered whenever a ratio falls below 0.85, a cushion above the four-fifths guideline. Each review will ask whether the step still measures what the job requires and whether a less discriminatory alternative with equal validity has become available, the question Title VII's burden-shifting framework poses.

Conclusion

A selection system can be valid and still unfair if a tool measures something the job does not require. Reviewing each step for impact and job relevance, and designing fixes before use, keeps the agency within the law and gives applicants a process they can trust.

References

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (2018).

Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (2018).

Gilliland, S. W. (1993). The perceived fairness of selection systems: An organizational justice perspective. Academy of Management Review, 18(4), 694-734. https://doi.org/10.2307/258595

Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971).

Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (2009).