APP_W3_PhillipsL

Human Resource Management (Available Titles Coursemate)

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Nkomo # 38 Case: A Solution for Adverse Impact 1 Unfair Discrimination and Total Selection Process Nkomo # 38 Case: A Solution for Adverse Impact By: Lisa Phillips Class: Instructor: Date: February 4, 2012 Walden University
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Nkomo # 38 Case: A Solution for Adverse Impact 2 Abstract: Staffing practices at one federal government agency is need of change. Members of this agency gather up numbers from the total selection process. As adverse impact is evident in each process, Bob Santos and Ron Burden are ready for a change. They conduct a two day conference with positive results. As the reading and comprehension test was changed and the guidelines for the interview changed, my part was to determine a few questions to be included in the interview process and the type of validation to use.
Background image of page 2
Nkomo # 38 Case: A Solution for Adverse Impact 3 Adverse Impact Federal government agencies are usually a head of things, however every once in a while they may need some help. A complaint from many job applicants’ regarding the selection procedures of one of the entry level law enforcement jobs was brought to the attention of the personnel specialist. In previous years, the specialist ignored the possibility of discrimination of certain race and gender applicants. Now this alert makes the potential problem a reality. Bob Santos was a personnel specialist employed with the staffing division of this government agency for the last two years. After attending a training seminar on the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, he knew an evaluation on current staffing practices was necessary, since they were developed before the uniform guideline of 1978 was accepted. Using the four fifths rule they evaluated part one and two of the application process and then the evaluation of the total process. This leaves the question, is there any evidence of adverse impact against any race, sex, or ethnic group? Part one calculation’s are as follows: Explanation of how you get these calculations are: You take the pass rate for the minority and divide that by the pass rate for the major minority. Since Caucasian is the major minority their pass rate is 47.5. For the women and men section the men’s pass rate is 44.2 African Americans: 27.8 / 47.5 = 0.58526 = 58.5 % since it is less than 80 percent there is evidence of adverse impact. Hispanics: 43.1 / 47.5 = 0.90736 = 90.7 % since it is larger than 80 percent there is no evidence of adverse impact. Women: 51.4 / 44.2 = 1.16289 = 116.3 % since it is larger than 80 percent there is no evidence of adverse impact. Based on the EEOC Guidelines, Part One test results show that the test has evidence of adverse or disparate impact. This “occurs when members of a protected category are substantially underrepresented as a result of employment decisions that work to their disadvantage” . One problem lies with the African American applicants, but another problem is the amount of applicants for Asian and Native Americans. Since there was no applicants the rule
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 8

APP_W3_PhillipsL - Nkomo # 38 Case: A Solution for Adverse...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online