(July 1, 2010) Dr. Steilberg of ATG comments on Supreme Court ruling…
The recent Supreme Court ruling overturning Ricci v. DeStefano reinforces the criticality of using properly validated tools and processes in making employment decisions. In this case, employees argued that they were adversely treated by the employer’s decision to not certify the results of a test used for promotion purposes. In the summary writing, Justice Kennedy stated, “[t]he City [employer], moreover, turned a blind eye to evidence that supported the exams’ validity.”
Scientific assessment of people at work allows us to make better, more accurate and efficient decisions. But it is not always easy to establish the circumstances of valid, defensible assessment procedures. In this case, a sophisticated employer was found to be at fault even though they thought they were doing the right thing.
Employers are cautioned to insure the processes they use to make decisions are valid, free of bias and the best possible solution available. We are now seeing that the courts are ruling in favor of scientific assessment. In this era, employers would be shortsighted not to apply the science of proper selection procedures in order to make better, legally defensible decisions. The financial and reputation-based implications of not using science at work are becoming too significant to avoid. Why risk it?
The recent Supreme Court ruling overturning Ricci v. DeStefano reinforces the criticality of using properly validated tools and processes in making employment decisions. In this case, employees argued that they were adversely treated by the employer’s decision to not certify the results of a test used for promotion purposes. In the summary writing, Justice Kennedy stated, “[t]he City [employer], moreover, turned a blind eye to evidence that supported the exams’ validity.”
Scientific assessment of people at work allows us to make better, more accurate and efficient decisions. But it is not always easy to establish the circumstances of valid, defensible assessment procedures. In this case, a sophisticated employer was found to be at fault even though they thought they were doing the right thing.
Employers are cautioned to insure the processes they use to make decisions are valid, free of bias and the best possible solution available. We are now seeing that the courts are ruling in favor of scientific assessment. In this era, employers would be shortsighted not to apply the science of proper selection procedures in order to make better, legally defensible decisions. The financial and reputation-based implications of not using science at work are becoming too significant to avoid. Why risk it?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.