Testing

13 applicants you don’t want to hire (plus 7 tips for decoding resumes)

09/21/2010

Desperate times mean job-seekers are resorting to desperate measures to make their résumés stand out in a crowd. Alas, many of those strategies backfire. Witness these résumé bloopers recently uncovered in a nationwide survey of hiring managers. Then check out our sure-fire advice for smoking out résumé untruths and exaggerations.

Don’t ask for unlimited medical exam consent

07/08/2010

Under the ADA, medical exams are allowed only if needed to determine whether an employee requires a reasonable accommodation or if the employer believes the employee will be unable to safely perform the job. But can employers require employees to agree to more extensive medical examinations as a condition of employment? Probably not.

Supreme Court rules on pre-employment tests and disparate impact

06/18/2010

The U.S. Supreme Court in late May unanimously sided with a group of black firefighter applicants who alleged that the city of Chicago’s employment selection process had a disparate impact on them. The court said the timing of Title VII lawsuits doesn’t depend on when the alleged discriminatory act first occurred, but on when the employer acted on the results of that discriminatory act, even if that’s years later.

When determining fitness for duty, strictly limit medical inquiries to essential functions

06/18/2010

Employers aren’t allowed to delve into an employee’s disabilities or medical history when that employee wants to keep the information private—unless the employer can show a job-related reason for doing so. To qualify, the inquiry must be narrowly tailored to assess whether the employee is capable of performing the essential functions of his job. Broad questions often run afoul of the law.

Supreme Court rules on Chicago hiring test

06/14/2010

In a case coming out of Illinois, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that each time an employer uses the results of a test to select candidates for promotion creates a new opportunity for employees to challenge that test. That means if a test was invalid, its continued use may spur litigation long after the test was actually administered.

High Court: Bias clock resets with each hiring decision

06/10/2010

In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court in May ruled that the lawsuit clock resets each time an employer uses apparently biased job-qualification tests to make hiring decisions. The court said the timing of Title VII lawsuits doesn’t depend on when the test was administered, but on when the employer uses the test results, even if that’s years later.

Avoid bad hires and bad lawsuits by testing for job skills before hiring

06/09/2010

It happens all the time: A manager decides to take a chance by hiring a marginally qualified applicant. Then, days later, it becomes clear she can’t do the job. The employer has little choice but to terminate. But then the fired employee feels she has little choice but to sue for some form of discrimination. The best way to avoid those lawsuits: Don’t count on “gut feeling” or interview skills. Run the applicant through job-specific tests.

Pre-Employment Testing

06/01/2010

HR Law 101: Many organizations use pre-employment tests to screen applicants. But be aware of the risks involved. Unless you can demonstrate that a test measures job-related qualities and fulfills a business necessity, you could be exposing your organization to charges of discrimination …

Creating drug-free workplace: How to draft a policy, conduct legal tests

05/26/2010

When drug abuse isn’t an obvious problem in the workplace, it’s easy for employers to develop a cavalier attitude about it. That’s not smart. It’s in your best interest to detect employee drug abuse early and root it out immediately. Keeping your workplace drug-free means knowing how to spot the problem and effectively respond to it—without violating employees’ legal rights and creating legal liability.

Supreme Court: Title VII deadline clock resets with each new biased decision

05/25/2010

The Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that the Title VII lawsuit clock resets each time an employer uses apparently biased job-qualification tests to make hiring decisions. Lewis v. Chicago recharts the litigation calendar, while recalling two other landmark Supreme Court cases.