Lost in Translation: Disparate Impact Reduction Strategies and Legal Stakeholders

Abstract

CHOCKALINGAM VISWESVARANFlorida International UniversityIn their coverage of employment discrim-ination issues within personnel selection,Lindsey, King, Dunleavy, McCausland, andJones (2013) aptly discuss how researchin the area of disparate impact has sug-gested and evaluated the merit of varioustechniques to reduce the occurrence ofdifferential hiring rates across groups(e.g., Ployhart & Holtz, 2008; Ryan &Tippins, 2004). Later, Lindsay et al. pro-vide various recommendations for howindustrial–organizational (I–O) psycholo-gists can advance research and practice inthis area. In our opinion, to reach the ‘‘. . .ultimate goal of eradicating employmentdiscrimination’’ (Lindsey et al. p. 1), at leastin terms of disparate impact, stakeholdersbeyond the I–O field must be educatedabout the value of these strategies. In thiscommentary we summarize the results of anational survey that demonstrates attorneysmay not be aware of the usefulness ofdifferent strategies developed by I–Opsychologists to reduce the occurrence ofdisparate impact. We agree with Lindsayet al. that we need to inform the EEOC ofour findings—but argue that we need togo beyond the EEOC and make concerted