Why is it that some of the smartest minds, most creative leaders, and shrewd business people repeatedly make the same mistakes in the interest of minimizing costs? This is especially surprising knowing that they almost certainly will be found out at the cost of significant punitive/compensatory damages and the kind of negative press that can dramatically affect their brands. As my grandmother used to say, "They are penny wise but pound foolish!"
The OFCCP in a news release dated September 15, 2010, reported on a US Departmemt of Labor lawsuit against Tyson Fresh Meats--the largest supplier of premium beef and port--for systemic discrimination against women. It is alleged that Tyson "systematically rejected female job applicants at its plant in Joslin, Illinois." It is further alleged that Tyson utilized a hiring process and selection procedures that resulted in discrimination against women who were seeking entry-level positions.
If these allegations prove to be true, what will it cost Tyson? According to the OFCCP, the complaint requests that ALL of Tyson's federal contracts be canceled and that Tyson be required to provide complete relief which includes lost wages, interest, and other benefits of employment. This includes paying back wages to more than 700 women who are owed back wages and to give over 100 women the opportunity to take a position with the company.
How is it that obviously smart people have allowed their company to end up in this position? Does it suggest that they intended to discriminate against women? I believe the answer is "no". I also believe that those who live in glass houses should not throw rocks.
The reality of what happened with Tyson could have easily happened to any company. I believe that Tyson was probably going along doing its business and because their personnel selection system "seemed" to be working correctly, the became complacent. Believe it or not, this tendency toward becoming complacent towards things you are often exposed to is a fundamental part of human nature and psychologists have given it a name--The Availability Heuristic.
The reality is, I would bet, that Tyson had no idea that their selection system was improperly screening out females. However, the courts do not recognize "I didn't know" as a valid excuse for discrimination.
All employers should be on the alert against falling into the same trap as Tyson did. There are relatively simple steps you can take NOW to avoid costly litigation tomorrow. You should conduct a job analysis, identify the critical knowledge, skills and abilities, and link those to the actual content of your personnel assessment tools.
For more information or for help with your selection process, visit us at http://www.affirmativeactionservices.com/ or email Dr. Jim Higgins at JHiggins@AffirmativeActionServices.com.
Showing posts with label Validation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Validation. Show all posts
Monday, October 11, 2010
Monday, October 4, 2010
Jim Higgins - Avoiding Litigation Risk In Selection: Tips for Employers
I have been considering the Wackenhut case that was discussed in the OFCCP News Release dated 06/09/2010 and wondering how many employers run the same risks--completely unnecessarily. Consider what happened to Wackenhut. They were required to pay a total of $290,000 in back pay to 446 African Americans who were not hired (at least partly) on the basis of their score ona personnel selection test.
In examining item and test performance data on the test used by Wackenhut, the OFCCP determined that there was statistically significant adverse impact against African Americans in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Because of these group differences, the OFCCP demonstrated that Wackenhut was engaging in systemic discrimination. In addition to the consent decree requiring the payment of $690,000 in back pay to the applicants, Wackenhut was required to hire 41 of the original applicants into traditional security positions.
Dr. Patricia Shiu, Director of the OFCCP, noted that "This...should put all federal contractors on notice that the Labor Department is serious about eliminating systemic discrimination."
Wackenhut could have completely avoided this situation if they had followed the appropriate steps for validating their personnel selection tests. They should have spent the relatively short amount of time to conduct a job analysis that contained the kinds of quantitative data that would help them identify the critical job duties as well as the critical knowledge, skills, and abilities required to perform those duties. Then they could have documented the extent to which each question on their test was "linked to" or "measured" one or more critical knowledge, skills or abilities required on the job. Once they administered their test, they should have conducted a statistical analysis to determine whether the test scores exhibited adverse impact against employees based on those characteristics protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Finally, they should have documented a review of the available test options to demonstrate that there were no other testing formats that were equally valid and which were feasible given the employer's current situation.
These steps are easy and well worth the effort. Wackenhut could have saved up to 90% of what they paid in back pay and avoided the negative press that comes with being found to discriminate.
To learn more about how to validate pre-employment tests or for assistance conducting validation studies to minimize your own company's legal exposure, visit: http://www.affirmativeactionservices.com/.
In examining item and test performance data on the test used by Wackenhut, the OFCCP determined that there was statistically significant adverse impact against African Americans in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Because of these group differences, the OFCCP demonstrated that Wackenhut was engaging in systemic discrimination. In addition to the consent decree requiring the payment of $690,000 in back pay to the applicants, Wackenhut was required to hire 41 of the original applicants into traditional security positions.
Dr. Patricia Shiu, Director of the OFCCP, noted that "This...should put all federal contractors on notice that the Labor Department is serious about eliminating systemic discrimination."
Wackenhut could have completely avoided this situation if they had followed the appropriate steps for validating their personnel selection tests. They should have spent the relatively short amount of time to conduct a job analysis that contained the kinds of quantitative data that would help them identify the critical job duties as well as the critical knowledge, skills, and abilities required to perform those duties. Then they could have documented the extent to which each question on their test was "linked to" or "measured" one or more critical knowledge, skills or abilities required on the job. Once they administered their test, they should have conducted a statistical analysis to determine whether the test scores exhibited adverse impact against employees based on those characteristics protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Finally, they should have documented a review of the available test options to demonstrate that there were no other testing formats that were equally valid and which were feasible given the employer's current situation.
These steps are easy and well worth the effort. Wackenhut could have saved up to 90% of what they paid in back pay and avoided the negative press that comes with being found to discriminate.
To learn more about how to validate pre-employment tests or for assistance conducting validation studies to minimize your own company's legal exposure, visit: http://www.affirmativeactionservices.com/.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)