HREEOC (Case Study) - Essay Example

The last held position was supervising teller. As the company requires teller, here the past experience of her can be neglected as it was not completely comprises of supervising tellers. Jake worked for part time in a fast food centre and completed his accountancy certification. This proves his dedication to his study and the nature of the work he prefers. As he was proved enthusiastic in the pre employment testing it is advisable to hire Jake instead of Mary. The employment law or case law does not hold for this type of cases and these types of rejections does not fall under EEOC practices.

Pre-hire testing is considered as an effective risk management tool that has been proven to significantly improve productivity. Despite the widespread use of pre-employment testing, anxiety continues to surround the use of these tests due to legal issues, which are largely complicated and difficult to understand. Care should be taken in avoiding the adverse impact. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is "unlawful for an employer to refuse to hire any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his . . .

employment, because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." With regards to pre-employment testing, Section 703(h) of the Act provides that "notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, it shall not be an unlawful practice for an employer . . . to give and to act upon the results of any professionally developed ability test provided that such test . . . is not designed, intended or used to discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin." Obviously, Title VII does not prohibit employers from the use of intelligence, skills or integrity tests in the workplace.

There has not been a single case that found an employer's use of personality testing in the workplace resulted in the adverse impact of protected groups. As this case of Mary and Jake comes under the test of integrity and not under other cases, it cannot be considered under any of the criteria mentioned under the law which covers personality testing and brings legal tangles to employers. The employer can be free to select Jake avoiding the presence of sentence stained Mary. 3. What would be the implications of either decisionThe consequences that are supposed to arise can be categorized into two types after the recruitment. 1. The sequences those are due to the work culture of the person recruited. 2. Possible legal tangles due to suing of the company by the rejected candidate, when he/she feels that he/she was rejected in unjustifiable manner.

In the first case of consequences it is easy to suspect or predict that if Mary was recruited the embezzlement may take place even in this organization. As it is a bank and the misappropriation that takes place will leave a stain on its reputation. One cannot stand guarantee for a sentenced and bankrupted personality, that too when he/she was sentenced for willfully committed cheating or fraud. The same fraudulent practices cannot be ruled out if Mary was recruited. In the case of Jake as he was a fresher the company may think about his experience.

But the specialization in accountancy makes him different from Jake and gives him an advantage