The Supreme Court in Albemarle held that the company\u27s employee testing practices violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In its decision, the Court gave great deference to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission\u27s Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures. The author argues that the effect of the decision is to mandate strict compliance with the guidelines\u27 specific and complex procedures on test validation. In so mandating, the author contends, the Court has signaled an end to the use of employee testing as an aid in hiring and promotion decisions
The article discusses Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It mentions that Title VII focuses on ...
In this Article, Mr. Rose addresses the conflict amongst the federal courts of appeals regarding the...
Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to address the problem of discrimination. Although the...
The Supreme Court in Albemarle held that the company\u27s employee testing practices violated Title ...
Since the Supreme Court held in Griggs that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits empl...
In 1964, Congress passed comprehensive legislation aimed at eradicating discrimination in employment...
Last term the Supreme Court handed down three decisions in which it defined with some precision the ...
In this Comment, Professor Shoben advocates the use of a statistical technique—a test of the differe...
When Congress passed Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it did not extend the coverage of th...
The author questions whether the dicta in a recent Supreme Court case, Local Union No. 1784 v. Stott...
Over the past decade, the United States Supreme Court has debated the extent to which employment dec...
In Norman-Bloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth...
In contrast to most recent commentary and a superficial reading of Supreme Court cases, Professor La...
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 grants the federal courts jurisdiction in employment discr...
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a broad remedial measure designed \u27to assure equali...
The article discusses Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It mentions that Title VII focuses on ...
In this Article, Mr. Rose addresses the conflict amongst the federal courts of appeals regarding the...
Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to address the problem of discrimination. Although the...
The Supreme Court in Albemarle held that the company\u27s employee testing practices violated Title ...
Since the Supreme Court held in Griggs that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits empl...
In 1964, Congress passed comprehensive legislation aimed at eradicating discrimination in employment...
Last term the Supreme Court handed down three decisions in which it defined with some precision the ...
In this Comment, Professor Shoben advocates the use of a statistical technique—a test of the differe...
When Congress passed Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it did not extend the coverage of th...
The author questions whether the dicta in a recent Supreme Court case, Local Union No. 1784 v. Stott...
Over the past decade, the United States Supreme Court has debated the extent to which employment dec...
In Norman-Bloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth...
In contrast to most recent commentary and a superficial reading of Supreme Court cases, Professor La...
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 grants the federal courts jurisdiction in employment discr...
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a broad remedial measure designed \u27to assure equali...
The article discusses Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It mentions that Title VII focuses on ...
In this Article, Mr. Rose addresses the conflict amongst the federal courts of appeals regarding the...
Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to address the problem of discrimination. Although the...