Do Race and Age Skew Career Assessment Results? Understanding Bias in Employment Testing

Employers frequently utilize tests and selection procedures as crucial tools to evaluate candidates for hiring and employees for promotions. These assessments range widely, encompassing cognitive and personality tests to medical evaluations, credit checks, and criminal background investigations. While these tools aim to streamline the selection process and identify the most qualified individuals, a critical question arises: does race and age affect career assessment tool results in a way that could be discriminatory or unfair?

The effectiveness of tests and selection procedures in gauging job qualifications is undeniable. However, their application must be carefully scrutinized to ensure compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws. These laws are in place to prevent intentional discrimination based on protected characteristics such as race, color, sex, national origin, religion, disability, and age (40 and older). Furthermore, even seemingly neutral tests can inadvertently lead to discrimination if they disproportionately exclude individuals from specific groups based on these protected characteristics, unless the employer can legally justify the necessity of such tests for the job.

This article delves into the critical issue of potential bias in career assessment tools, specifically exploring whether race and age can influence their outcomes. We will examine the legal framework surrounding employment testing, the types of tests used, and practical steps employers can take to ensure fairness and avoid discriminatory practices. Understanding whether race and age affect career assessment tool results is not just a matter of legal compliance, but also of ethical and effective hiring practices.

The Growing Landscape of Employment Testing and the Specter of Discrimination

The practice of employment testing has become increasingly prevalent. This surge is partly fueled by heightened security concerns since 9/11, alongside a greater focus on workplace safety, violence prevention, and liability reduction. The digital age has also played a significant role, with online job applications becoming the norm. This digital shift compels employers to find efficient, objective methods to sift through vast numbers of applicants.

However, this increased reliance on testing has also brought to the forefront concerns about potential discrimination. The number of discrimination charges related to employment testing, including exclusions based on background checks and credit reports, reached a peak in 2007. This data underscores the importance of understanding and mitigating any factors that could cause race and age to affect career assessment tool results unfairly.

Decoding the Toolkit: Types of Employment Tests and Selection Procedures

A wide array of employment tests and selection procedures are available to employers today, many of which can be conveniently administered online. Understanding these different types is crucial to assessing how race and age might affect career assessment tool results in each case:

Cognitive Tests: These tests evaluate reasoning abilities, memory, perceptual speed, accuracy, and skills in areas like arithmetic and reading comprehension. They may also assess knowledge specific to a job function. Could cultural background or educational opportunities related to race or age influence performance on these tests?
Physical Ability Tests: These assessments measure physical capabilities required for specific tasks or general strength and stamina. Age and potentially societal factors related to race could play a role in physical abilities.
Sample Job Tasks (Performance Tests, Simulations, Work Samples): These tests directly assess performance and aptitude in job-related tasks. While seemingly practical, are there unconscious biases in how performance is evaluated that could be influenced by race or age stereotypes?
Medical Inquiries and Physical/Psychological Examinations: These evaluate physical and mental health. While directly health-related, it’s important to ensure these are job-relevant and not used to discriminate based on age or disability, which can disproportionately affect certain racial groups.
Personality and Integrity Tests: These aim to gauge personality traits or predict behavior like dependability or honesty. Are these tests culturally biased, potentially leading to different results based on racial or age-related personality stereotypes?
Criminal Background Checks: These provide arrest and conviction history. Racial disparities in the criminal justice system raise concerns about whether these checks disproportionately impact certain racial groups, even if indirectly related to job performance.
Credit Checks: These assess credit and financial history. Socioeconomic disparities linked to race and age could influence credit scores, raising questions about fairness when used for employment decisions.
Performance Appraisals: Supervisor evaluations of employee performance. Subjectivity in appraisals can introduce bias; could race or age stereotypes influence a supervisor’s perception?
English Proficiency Tests: These determine fluency in English. While language skills are often job-related, it’s crucial to ensure these tests are fair to individuals whose first language is not English and do not discriminate based on national origin, which is often linked to race.

Legal Guardians: EEO Laws Governing Employment Testing

Several key pieces of legislation form the bedrock of equal employment opportunity (EEO) in the United States, directly impacting how employers can use tests and selection procedures and addressing concerns about whether race and age affect career assessment tool results in a discriminatory manner.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Title VII is the cornerstone of anti-discrimination law, prohibiting employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Specifically regarding tests, Title VII permits their use as long as they are not “designed, intended or used to discriminate” based on these protected characteristics. Crucially, it also forbids manipulating test scores or using different cutoff scores based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
Title VII prohibits both “disparate treatment” and “disparate impact” discrimination.
- Disparate Treatment: This refers to intentional discrimination. For example, testing the reading ability of African American applicants but not white applicants is disparate treatment. Key questions in disparate treatment cases include: Was there differential treatment based on protected characteristics? Is there evidence of bias? Is the employer’s reason for differential treatment legitimate, or is it a pretext for discrimination?
- Disparate Impact: This concerns seemingly neutral practices that have a discriminatory effect. If a test disproportionately excludes individuals based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, and is not “job-related and consistent with business necessity,” it constitutes disparate impact discrimination. For example, a physical agility test that disproportionately screens out women might be discriminatory unless proven to be a business necessity.
  - Disparate impact cases typically investigate: Does a practice have a disparate impact on a protected group? If so, is the practice “job-related and consistent with business necessity”? Could a less discriminatory alternative achieve the same business goal?
The EEOC’s Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP) provides detailed guidance on how employers can ensure their tests are lawful under Title VII’s disparate impact theory. UGESP outlines methods for “test validation,” demonstrating job-relatedness.

Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

The ADA prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities.
It regulates when employers can conduct medical examinations or disability-related inquiries. Generally, these are restricted until after a conditional job offer is made. Even then, medical exams must be job-related and consistent with business necessity for current employees.
The ADA specifically prohibits using tests that screen out individuals with disabilities unless the test is job-related and a business necessity. It also mandates that tests accurately measure skills, not impairments, and requires reasonable accommodations in test administration for individuals with disabilities, unless it creates undue hardship for the employer.

The Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)

The ADEA protects individuals 40 and over from age-based discrimination in employment.
It prohibits disparate treatment based on age. For instance, giving a physical agility test only to applicants over 50 is discriminatory.
Crucially, the ADEA also prohibits disparate impact discrimination based on age, unless the challenged action is based on a “reasonable factor other than age.” This means if a test has a disparate impact on older workers, the employer must demonstrate its reasonableness, going beyond just “business necessity” to a broader standard of reasonable justification. This is highly relevant when considering if age affects career assessment tool results unfairly.

Real-World Ramifications: EEOC Litigation and Settlements

EEOC enforcement actions provide tangible examples of how these EEO principles are applied in practice, and highlight the importance of considering whether race and age affect career assessment tool results in a discriminatory way.

Title VII and Cognitive Tests: The Case of Disparate Impact: EEOC v. Ford Motor Co. addressed a cognitive test (ATSS) used for apprenticeship programs. While validated, it had a statistically significant disparate impact on African American applicants. Despite less discriminatory alternatives being available, Ford continued using the ATSS. The settlement mandated replacing the ATSS with a redesigned, less discriminatory procedure and included $8.55 million in relief. This case underscores that even validated tests can be discriminatory if they have disparate impact and less discriminatory alternatives exist.
Title VII and Physical Strength Tests: Job-Relatedness is Key: EEOC v. Dial Corp. involved a strength test for entry-level production jobs that disproportionately excluded women. While Dial argued it reduced injuries, the EEOC proved the test was excessively difficult and injury reduction was likely due to other factors. The court upheld the EEOC’s finding of Title VII violation based on disparate impact. This emphasizes that physical tests must be genuinely job-related and their necessity must be rigorously demonstrated, especially if they disproportionately affect a protected group (in this case, women, but the principle applies equally to race and age).
ADA and Test Accommodation: Ensuring Equal Opportunity: EEOC v. Daimler Chrysler Corp. involved applicants with learning disabilities needing reading accommodations for pre-employment tests for unskilled manufacturing jobs. The settlement required providing readers or audiotapes as reasonable accommodations. This case highlights the ADA’s requirement for reasonable accommodations in testing to ensure fair assessment for individuals with disabilities, removing barriers that might unfairly affect their test performance.

These cases collectively illustrate that employers must be vigilant in ensuring their testing practices are not discriminatory, whether intentionally or through disparate impact, and must provide necessary accommodations to ensure fair assessment. The underlying question in each scenario is whether factors like race, sex, age, or disability are unfairly influencing career assessment outcomes.

Best Practices: Navigating the Ethical and Legal Maze of Employment Testing

To mitigate the risk of discrimination and ensure fairness, employers should adopt proactive best practices in their testing and selection procedures, directly addressing the question of whether race and age affect career assessment tool results in a discriminatory way.

Administer Tests Impartially: Tests and selection procedures must be applied without regard to race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age (40+), or disability. Consistency and objectivity are paramount.
Ensure Test Validation and Job-Relatedness: Thoroughly validate tests for the specific positions and purposes for which they are used. The test must be demonstrably job-related, and its results must be appropriate for the intended purpose. Vendor validation documentation can be helpful, but the employer retains ultimate responsibility for ensuring validity under UGESP.
Explore Less Discriminatory Alternatives: If a selection procedure disproportionately screens out a protected group, actively seek equally effective alternatives with less adverse impact. If a test is the issue, explore if another test predicts job performance without the same discriminatory effect.
Regularly Review and Update Tests: Job requirements evolve. Employers must stay informed of these changes and update test specifications and selection procedures accordingly to maintain their job-relatedness and validity over time.
Centralize Test Adoption and Oversight: Avoid casual test adoption by managers lacking expertise in testing. Implement tests and selection procedures with a clear understanding of their effectiveness, limitations, job appropriateness, and proper administration and scoring. Centralized oversight ensures consistency and legal compliance.

By diligently implementing these best practices, employers can create a more equitable and legally sound testing environment, minimizing the potential for race and age to unfairly affect career assessment tool results and fostering a truly merit-based selection process.

For further information on employer experiences and challenges in employment testing, consult the testimonies from the EEOC meeting on testing available on the EEOC website: http://eeoc.gov/eeoc/meetings/archive/5-16-07/index.html. General information on discrimination laws (Title VII, ADA, ADEA) is also available on the EEOC website: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws.

Footnote

1 The Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP) were jointly issued by the Departments of Labor and Justice, the EEOC, and the Office of Personnel Management.