Adverse Impact Determination

There are 2 general approaches to determining whether Employment Discrimination in the Selection process has occurred or not. One is referred to as Discriminatory Intent, or INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION, the other is referred to as Discriminatory effect, or UNINTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION in the hiring practices on the selection rates for protected and non-protected class members. This is referred to as Adverse Impact; and while it is unintentional, it is discrimination none-the-less.

Discriminatory effect is determined by statistical and quantitative methods. That s statistical evidence can lead to a discriminatory hiring practice within an organization. This can occur when an employment test is administered to all applicants but a disproportionate number of applicants from protected classes score low on the tests).

Two specific techniques can be used. Selection rates, and population/workforce statistics. Selection rate statistics show the hiring versus non hiring rates among applicants from protected and non-protected class statuses. This technique uses only data from among those applicants whom were tested.

Population / Workforce statistics look at the availability and utilization of protected and non-protected classes from the general population rather than from those who were applicants for the jobs. Both techniques make very different assumptions.

Selection rates: If we hired 5 applicants out of 25 applicants the selection rate is 20%. Selection rates are calculated by gender and race. If selection rates vary enough between groups, there is evidence of Adverse Impact (intentional discrimination). The UGES indicate that the 80% rule be used as the "rule of thumb form making this determination. Assume that for example, the selection rate for Caucasians and blacks are 40 % and 30 % respectively. The 80% rule (also called the 4/5ths rule) suggests that 80% of the hiring rate for the minority in hiring class (blacks, in this example) be at least 32% (.40 x .80) The 30% hiring rate among blacks in this example is aprima faciecase of discrimination.

The data in the following Figure provides data for 50 applicants for a job for floor level management position in a retail establishment. The figure indicates the applicants gender (M or F) and their score on a composite index score made up of individual scores on several different employments tests they took (a weighed application blank, years of experience in retailing, an interview score and a test score).

Only those applicants who scored 490 or higher were further considered for employment at the company.

Applicant	Applicant
No.	Sex	Score	No.	Sex	Score
1	M	495	26	M	430
2	M	485	27	F	385
3	F	420	28	F	575
4	M	470	29	M	525
5	M	500	30	F	450
6	F	535	31	M	450
7	F	510	32	M	580
8	M	455	33	F	450
9	M	610	34	M	515
10	M	480	35	F	560
11	F	480	36	M	450
12	M	545	37	F	485
13	F	590	38	M	595
14	M	410	39	M	465
15	F	460	40	F	500
16	M	560	41	F	470
17	M	570	42	M	610
18	F	410	43	M	530
19	M	530	44	F	455
20	F	550	45	M	575
21	F	545	46	F	460
22	M	620	47	M	390
23	M	470	48	M	550
24	M	565	49	F	530
25	M	560	50	M	440

1. Do your calculations show that there is Adverse Impact? Provide your data to back up your conclusion and present your results in a one page empirical summary, including selection rate for males, selection rate for females, and correct calculation and interpretation of the 80% rule.

2. What are your conclusions concerning the discriminatory effect on this selection process?

Grading Rubric-- AI	Worth
Student shows the correct calculation/evidence of the correct calculations	15
Student applies and interprets the 80% rule correctly	15
Student makes proper conclusions of the discriminatory effect of the selection process	15
Presentation, discussion, composition, etc.	5
Total.................................	50

Please help with this assignment........