Abstract
Pre-employment testing has become one of the fastest-growing tools used to select successful employees within organizations. A variety of testing tools are at the disposal of Human Resource managers and hiring managers. Testing of employees has developed since the time of Sigmund Freud, and testing entered the legal arena with the seminal case of Griggs v. Duke Power. Ever since the Griggs case, “tests” need to be “relevant” and “valid” when given in the employment context, and left the burden of proof on the employer to demonstrate that its employment practices were not discriminatory, and that any disparate effects were clearly justified by the business. Since the Griggs case, employers have developed tests that legally comply with the letter of the law, but may violate the spirit of the law by still permitting illegal discrimination. This paper looks at recent case law and draws a conclusion.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Journal of Business & Economics Research (JBER)
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
