Employers use various means to decide who they want to hire. Typically, there are a set of qualifications one must meet, such as an education level and/or type, an amount of relevant experience, a particular license, or even a physical ability. In addition to these requirements, employers may administer a test to determine the degree to which a job applicant meets the job requirements. Finally, the actual job interview may be considered a test, depending on how it is structured. The whole idea is to reasonably ensure the person hired can do the job.
Sometimes, however, the tests and standards employers use can serve to discriminate against applicants who enjoy protection under the Civil Rights Act or similar state and local laws. Most notably, applicants and employees are protected on the basis of race, gender, age, disability, and ethnic background.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission administers these laws and handles complaints of discrimination, including those involving employment tests. The EEOC has become more active in this area in recent years, conducting investigations and bringing charges against employers. The EEOC examines whether the test is necessary to screen applicants and whether the test actually achieves its purpose.
Recently, the EEOC reached a settlement with a California trucking company that required applicants to perform strength tests as part of the screening process. The EEOC argued that the tests were not relevant to the actual job duties and had an adverse impact on female and older applicants.
The agency also agreed with Target to settle a claim that some of its pre-employment tests were not job-related and therefore did not meet business needs. The EEOC asserted that the tests served to discriminate against applicants due to their gender, race, and disability. Target agreed to pay $2.8 million to those claimants. Contact us today to speak with a professional discrimination lawyer in Stockton.
Sacramento, CA 95821