<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>HR Morning &#187; Ricci v. Destefano</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.hrmorning.com/tag/ricci-v-destefano/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.hrmorning.com</link>
	<description>Your daily dose of HR</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 22:14:10 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Opinion: Supreme Court rules on testing! (Ho-hum)</title>
		<link>http://www.hrmorning.com/opinion-supreme-court-rules-on-testing-ho-hum/</link>
		<comments>http://www.hrmorning.com/opinion-supreme-court-rules-on-testing-ho-hum/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:56:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jim Giuliano</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Employment law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hiring]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[In this week's e-newsletter]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Latest News & Views]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Haven]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ricci v. Destefano]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sotomayor]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hrmorning.com/?p=2929</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The High Court ruling on the New Haven, CT, firefighters&#8217; case seems as if should have some relevance to the day-to-day job of being an HR manager. Except it probably doesn&#8217;t. 
To recap the case of Ricci v. DeStefano:
Eighteen white employees and one Hispanic passed a firefighter promotion test. No black employees passed the test. [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The High Court ruling on the New Haven, CT, firefighters&#8217; case seems as if should have some relevance to the day-to-day job of being an HR manager. Except it probably doesn&#8217;t. <span id="more-2929"></span></p>
<p>To recap the case of<em> Ricci v. DeStefano</em>:</p>
<p>Eighteen white employees and one Hispanic passed a firefighter promotion test. No black employees passed the test. The whites later sued the city after officials nixed the test results &#8212; and in fact dropped the test altogether &#8212; when the officials feared they&#8217;d be sued by black test-takers claiming that the test discriminated against and had a disparate impact on blacks.</p>
<p>The white employees took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court and won. The Supremes, in a 5-4 vote, said the city had to go by the test results. (Of no small significance &#8212; publicity-wise &#8212; was the fact that the  High Court overruled the judgment of Supreme Court nominee Sandra Sotomayor.)</p>
<p>Countless employment-law attorneys are now dissecting what the ruling means to you and your particular organization. Our guess is that, for most HR managers, the impact amounts to a big, fat zero.</p>
<p>First of all, the test in question was a promotions test, not a hiring test. Second, it was administered by a unit of government. Third, no one really has been able to nail the overall impact of the ruling.</p>
<p>Most employment tests these days are what are called &#8220;assessments,&#8221; meaning they test particular skills needed for the job in question. In fact, the City of New Haven officials  have mentioned they they&#8217;re moving to such tests, which are supposed to measure relevant factors instead of general knowledge or intelligence. So the ruling on the firefighters&#8217; case has a further &#8220;who cares?&#8221; factor &#8212; unless you happen to be one of the eighteen who got denied a promotion. (And if you are, we suggest you look elsewhere for relevant post mortems of the ruling.)</p>
<p>Now, maybe you use Wonderlic or personality testing as a tool for hiring, but it&#8217;s doubtful that you rest your entire hiring decision on the results. If you do, we humbly suggest you consider changing your ways.</p>
<p>Be assured that the Supreme Court ruling has nothing to do with Wonderlic. In fact, we doubt it has much to do with anything of interest to you.</p>
<p>Unless, of course, you happen to be an employment-law attorney who&#8217;s looking to drum up a little more business.</p>
<img src="http://www.hrmorning.com/?ak_action=api_record_view&id=2929&type=feed" alt="" />]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.hrmorning.com/opinion-supreme-court-rules-on-testing-ho-hum/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- This site's performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Dramatically improve the speed and reliability of your blog!

Learn more about our WordPress Plugins: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk
Page Caching using disk (user agent is rejected)
Database Caching 10/17 queries in 0.015 seconds using disk

Served from: lamp02.pbp.com @ 2010-03-15 19:59:11 -->