Employee Selection and Legal Advice

Legal Advice
BAP Fashions
PSYCH/705
October 13, 2014
University of Phoenix

Legal Advice
Introduction
Employment selection is a complex practice that needs an extensive planning. EEO regulation has considerably induced to inspire organizations’ in their recruitment activities. All staffing measures for each job classification must be reviewed to eliminate unfair judgments. Recruitment interviewing is also more complex and challenging because of EEO legislation and court decisions. Organizations must be careful, however, not to accidentally violate EEO laws while they were conducting a selection process. If the interviewer asks for unrelated job questions during the interview process, the organization risks the chance of lawsuits. EEOC requires that unfair queries must be eliminated. Specifically, this means interviewers may not ask any questions that lead to an adverse impact on employment of identifiable groups, that do not address the requirements of the job or that constitute an invasion of privacy (Cascio & Aguinis, 2005).
Legal Issues Recognized by Our Team Our team recognized that despite of diversity training, positive changes in the workplace, and laws passed protecting the rights of employees, stereotyping, and discrimination continued. Many U.S. organizations have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on legal fees (Landy & Conte 2010). In conducting a conversation with Team A’s members, the team identified different ethical and legal issues in hiring process. The subject of choice is disparate treatment that focuses on stereotyping in hiring process. The team discussed that the validity employment screening will reduce if job-evaluators performed a stereotyping behavior in a selection process. When a job evaluator is doing the stereotyping in interview, this will make an instant negative judgment about an applicant’s capabilities and potential for the job in the absence of sufficient objective data to justify that judgment. In this case, the manager will unfairly disadvantage the designated group member. For example, because a person manifests anxiety during a job interview, the interviewer may infer that he or she lacks emotionally stability, has low self-esteem, and has low job-related ability. Hence, because of stereotyping behavior the interviewer may assume that because a job applicant seemed anxious during a job interview, he or she was not suitable for a job. The team also recognized that there is a bias on the physical attractiveness of job applicants. Indeed, Langlois, Kalakanis, Rubenstein, Larson, Hallam, and Smoot (2000) research analysis indicated that attractive persons were more successful than unattractive person. In personal perspective, the possible reason for the greater occupational success of physically attractive persons is that they are given advantages in the initial screening and selection into jobs. Langlois et al. (2000) assumed that beauty and attractiveness is linked to a variety of attributes including attitudes, health (mental and physical), self-esteem, extraversion, social skills, and cognitive ability (intelligence). This bias can obviously affect the interview scores; it can lower the quality of hiring decisions.
Disparate Treatment Discrimination in the Workplace Similar to many U.S. companies, Texaco and Coca-Cola are being confronted with more discrimination lawsuits (Landy & Conte 2010). In Texaco, company executives were taped openly discussing shredding minutes of meetings and other documents that would implicate them in discrimination suits filed by black employees. These tapes bolster the charges that Texaco discriminated against minorities in promotions and fostered a racially hostile corporate environment. They also show that Texaco did not learn from experience with earlier discrimination suits (Eichenwald, 1996). At Coca-Cola, African-American workers successfully sued the company for race discrimination. The employees cited inequality in numerous ways including inconsistencies in performance appraisals, rewards, and promotions (Abdallah et al., v. The Coca-Cola Company, 1999). This was the result of a lack of objective criteria, and standardized practices, with little oversight on the process (Abdallah et al., v. The Coca-Cola Company, 1999). The company’s promotion selection process was tainted by manipulating scores and by hand-picking candidates in advance to ensure the supervisors’ favorites were promoted (usually Caucasian employees) instead of the most eligible.
Texaco and Coca-Cola allowed managers to hold prejudices against workers. African-American workers filed complaints against Texaco and Coca-Cola, declaring that the companies failed to pay and treat them fairly in relation to Caucasian employees.
These cases obviously violated the equal employment regulations into protected-class individuals.
The Sources of Disparate Treatment
The most common causes of unequal treatment in the workplace are the following:
Ineffective organizational culture- Most diversity problems are rooted in the organization culture. An organization that tolerates discrimination is prone to legal issues and lawsuits.
An ignorant organization- an organization that does not understand the basics of federal equal employment opportunity (EEO) is obviously prone to lawsuits. Violating EEO law can be very costly. Therefore, it is important that organizations must review the employment standard to avoid lawsuits. The EEOC is available for workplace to give an educational role to understand the law. The agency assists businesses by developing procedures and advices on how to foster a system that follows laws.
Poor Screening Measures- A related problem is the validity of the prescreening. In some cases, the lack of an observed relationship is due to the measurement problem. Interviews are often part of large-scale selection programs and do not always yield precise scores (Landy & Conte 2010). The test developer has a special obligation to explain to interviewers what the test score means, how large a difference between test scores is significant, and how the test scores should be used. To have an effective hiring method, an organization needs to develop a valid measurement in deciding the suitability of a candidate. The used of variety selection techniques such as assessment centers, personality testing, cognitive testing, structured interview, and an assortment of behavioral interviews can help organizations in enhancing the accuracy of the selection process (Cascio & Aguinis, 2005).
Steps to Prevent Disparate Discrimination
The HR team has a vital role to play in preventing workplace discrimination. HR should:
Focus on judging an applicant 's KSAs to perform the job. It is essential that the selection decision is maximally valid and is not on non-task-related characteristics of the individual, including race, gender, age, or to perform activities not part of the core of the job (Muchinsky, 2006).
Provide a fair employment application requirements and interview questions must relate to the nature of the job (Cascio & Aguinis, 2005). Organization should be indiscriminant, and a position must be open to all.
Build an effective organizational culture. Organizations must develop a zero tolerance policy for discrimination practices. As the zero tolerance policy comes into effect, no discrimination or harassment behaviors will be tolerated from one employee toward another employee who either believes differently, whose culture is different, chooses a different lifestyle, has a different set of values, or is of a different sexual orientation.
Develop a valid measurement. Job screening must be relevant to the job, either predictive of success on the job or reflective of actual job requirements. In order to measure the validity in measurement, the test must measure something with consistency (Miller, Lovler, & McIntire, 2013). An instrument that produces consistent data over time, then, it is a reliable tool. It describes the same behavior in the same terms on different occasions, or gives the same performance the same rating at different times. In order for the test to be valid, there must be a direct connection among the factors being measured, and it assess what it intends to measure (Miller, Lovler, & McIntire, 2013).
Conclusion
Organizational recruiting efforts must be guided by a clear recruitment philosophy, goals, and values of the organization. An organization that hires employees based on race not in ability is practicing a biased culture. Disparate discrimination can transpire in the workplace because of management carelessness, ineffective organizational culture, and lack of employment legislation knowledge. Failure to master the necessary legal interviewing techniques and hiring procedure can generate hostility and employment lawsuit.
To avoid the charge of discrimination case, it is essential that leaders in organizations must understand the laws. It is essential that job evaluators must consider the legal standards at all times. Job evaluators should carefully review, and applied while developing measurement criteria in an organization. In addition, job evaluators must be aware of some common misjudgments and errors.
Regardless of the type of a selection process used, there are certain pitfalls that the hirer should try to avoid. Job interviewers are prone to make a series of errors. These include: first impression effects (judgment based on impression), compatibility effects (demographic biases such as, religion, gender, race), halo effects (judgments on other dimensions), leniency errors (tending to score all candidates highly), central tendency errors (tending to give all candidates average scores), and contrast effects (comparing candidates with each other rather than against criteria) (Cascio & Aguinis, 2005).

References
Abdallah et al. v. The Coca-Cola Company, No. 1–98-CV-3679 (N. D. Ga. 1999). Retrieved from www.essentialaction.org/spotlight/coke/complaint.html.
Cascio, W. F., & Aguinis, H. (2005). Applied psychology in human resource management (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Eichenwald, K. (1996, November 4). Texaco executives, on tape, discussed impeding a bias suit. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1996/11/04/ business/texaco-executives-on-tape-discussed-impeding-a-bias-suit.html?src=pm& pagewanted=2
Landy, F. J., & Conte, J. M. (2010). Work in the 21st century: An introduction to industrial and organizational psychology (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M., & Smoot, M. (2000). Maximx or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 126(3) 390-423. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.126.3.390.
Miller, L. A., Lovler, R., & McIntire, S. A. (2013). Foundations of psychological testing: A practical approach (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Muchinsky, P. M. (2006). Psychology applied to work (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education.

References: Abdallah et al. v. The Coca-Cola Company, No. 1–98-CV-3679 (N. D. Ga. 1999). Retrieved from www.essentialaction.org/spotlight/coke/complaint.html. Cascio, W. F., & Aguinis, H. (2005). Applied psychology in human resource management (6th ed.) Eichenwald, K. (1996, November 4). Texaco executives, on tape, discussed impeding a bias suit Landy, F. J., & Conte, J. M. (2010). Work in the 21st century: An introduction to industrial and organizational psychology (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Langlois, J. H., Kalakanis, L., Rubenstein, A. J., Larson, A., Hallam, M., & Smoot, M. (2000). Maximx or myths of beauty? A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 126(3) 390-423. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.126.3.390. Miller, L. A., Lovler, R., & McIntire, S. A. (2013). Foundations of psychological testing: A practical approach (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Muchinsky, P. M. (2006). Psychology applied to work (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Higher Education.