San Diego Business Law

Free Articles - Table of Contents

Business Matters

Deducting the Business Use of Your Home

Should You Incorporate Your Business

Valuation Discounts

Where to Sue  

Human Resources

ADA Protects Employees with Cancer

New 401K Overtime

Update Social Security Number Verification for Employers

The Dangers of Employee Internet Use

The Hazards of Resume Screening  

Real Estate

Landlord/Tenant-Insurer May Sue for Fire Damage  

Miscellaneous

Good News For Those Who Struggle With Legal Risk

How To Assess Your Legal Risk

Partnerships And Limited Liability Companies

Electronic Signatures

ESOP Talk

Sale Of A Business

Trademarks & Service Marks

A Few Well Chosen Words About Contracts

AEDs Help Treat Heart Attacks

Contractor Shielded From Liability

Junk Fax Protection Act

"Pop-ups" Annoy But Don't Infringe

 

The Hazards of Resume Screening

It is popular now for employers to use screening tests, often administered on the Internet, to weed out a large portion of applicants for job openings before making the more difficult selections from among those who survive that first cut. Such tests are supposed to measure cognitive ability, personality characteristics, or, in fewer instances, the ability to perform in a simulation of the duties that the job requires. The easily administered and scored screening tests have their appeal, especially if you are charged with filling, say, 10 positions from 100 people who have submitted résumés.

A downside to screening tests is the risk that rejected applicants may persuade a court that the tests essentially were a tool to accomplish prohibited discrimination, even though that may not have been the employer’s intent. For example, an employment test that impacts racial minorities or women disproportionately could lead to liability unless the employer can show that the test is sufficiently related to the job and is necessary to the employer’s business.

Another potential pitfall stems from the prohibition in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) against medical testing of job applicants. There sometimes is a fine distinction between acceptable personality or psychological tests and prohibited medical tests. The screening of applicants also could run afoul of some state statutes that protect against invasions of privacy.

When individuals adversely affected by a personality test challenged the test in federal litigation under the ADA, an appellate court struck down the test. The test, at least in some of its 502 questions, was a prohibited examination of the applicants’ mental health. Its true or false questions went much farther than the acceptable lines of inquiry about matters such as working well in groups or in a fast‑paced office. Instead, they ventured into the realm of psychiatric disorders. In this case, a prospective manager of a rent‑to‑own store could not be required to give true or false answers to statements such as: “I see things or animals or people around me that others do not see”; “At times I have fits of laughing and crying that I cannot control”; or “My soul sometimes leaves my body.”

Concerns about personnel hiring, firing and retention are complicated and regulated by a myriad of State and Federal Regulations. To discuss your hiring, firing and retention practices, or for assistance in drafting your employee handbook contact Davis Law Association.