[IPAC-List] EEOC "Discussion" Letter

Mitch Stein Mitch.Stein at tn.gov
Tue Dec 6 14:56:40 EST 2011

My interpretation of that letter is that it is saying it does not matter if you have validated the MQ or whether it causes disparate impact. Validation, i.e. job relatedness and business necessity, and disparate impact are Title VII issues. When it comes to Title VII, the EEOC could care less if you use a Ouija Board, much less a valid selection criterion, to screen/select candidates...as long as it does not cause disparate impact.

This has to do with ADA, which requires an individualized assessment of a specific candidate's ability to perform essential job functions. My interpretation of the letter is that it is saying even if the requirement is valid, you still need to be able to show that a specific applicant without the education cannot perform the essential job functions even with reasonable accommodation.


Mitchell Stein, PhD
Director of Research
TN Dept. of Human Resources
(615) 532-8069

From: Dennis Doverspike [mailto:dennisdoverspike at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 1:45 PM
To: Mitch Stein
Cc: ipac-list at ipacweb.org
Subject: Re: [IPAC-List] EEOC "Discussion" Letter

My response would be - while it might create a burden but that burden has always been there. The burden is not new. Minimum qualifications such as education and experience should be validated.


1. Given large number of applicants, education requirements will probably have some adverse impact somewhere.

2. Therefore, as with any selection decision or test, they should be validated.

I would be wary of trying to solve the problem through tradeoffs. Tradeoffs are often more of a problem than a solution,

Dennis Doverspike

That is, it has been true for quite some time that if you have adverse impact, and if you have huge number of applicants you will have adverse impact,

More information about the IPAC-List mailing list