Ethical Considerations
After careful consideration of the lawsuits presented in Chapter 20 of the text, this writer chose two lawsuits that violate standards in which important future cases were based upon due to the outcomes of these cases. The first case is that within an employment setting in which testing was used to determine employee performance, yet was considered to not be valid or reliable. Griggs vs. Duke Power Company, 1971 brought to question if the testing that was being used to hold back African Americans from higher paying positions was valid (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2009). The same test however, when given to the Caucasian employees, did not provide fruitful results as they too failed the test. Standards require that businesses must demonstrate that such tests are "reasonably related" to the job for which the test is required. Rulings of this case set the pace for civil rights actions in this regard for nearly twenty years to follow (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2009).
Griggs v. Duke Power Co. also stated that the employer had the responsibility of producing and proving the necessity of a test in relation to the job. This leads this writer to the second case in which has been chosen which is Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Antonio, 1989. In this overturn of action, the courts reversed the burden of proof back upon the employees to provide evidence of the testing to be invalid and unreliable (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2009). Given that employers know how to construe their own tests, records and selection processes, it can prove nearly impossible to disrepute them (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2009). When considering the information given in the Standards text, (APA, AREA,& NCME, 1999), there are several standards violated in these cases. In regards to test administration, scoring and reporting, standard 5.5 states that instructions and practice should be afforded to those who are unfamiliar with equipment that may be required for the test (APA, AREA,& NCME, 1999). In Griggs vs.
Griggs v. Duke Power Co. also stated that the employer had the responsibility of producing and proving the necessity of a test in relation to the job. This leads this writer to the second case in which has been chosen which is Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Antonio, 1989. In this overturn of action, the courts reversed the burden of proof back upon the employees to provide evidence of the testing to be invalid and unreliable (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2009). Given that employers know how to construe their own tests, records and selection processes, it can prove nearly impossible to disrepute them (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 2009). When considering the information given in the Standards text, (APA, AREA,& NCME, 1999), there are several standards violated in these cases. In regards to test administration, scoring and reporting, standard 5.5 states that instructions and practice should be afforded to those who are unfamiliar with equipment that may be required for the test (APA, AREA,& NCME, 1999). In Griggs vs.