1932

Abstract

Laws designed to reduce employment discrimination and to regulate labor standards have a strong impact on the management of human resources in organizations. This article examines in detail the development and enforcement of antidiscrimination laws in the United States; it also considers comparable laws and policies in the European Union (EU). A significant body of research focuses on the standards that are used to determine whether particular policies or practices are discriminatory, and if so, whether they are sufficiently job-related to be legally permissible; here, I examine key themes in this research. This article also examines emerging issues, such as determining who is an applicant and who is an employee, and it explores the role of the legal environment in impeding the application of scientific knowledge to advance the practice of human resource management (HRM).

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104435
2018-01-21
2024-06-13
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/orgpsych/5/1/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104435.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104435&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Aguinis H. 2004. Test-Score Banding in Human Resource Selection: Technical, Legal, and Societal Issues Westport, CT: Praeger [Google Scholar]
  2. Aguinis H, Cortina HM, Goldberg E. 1998. A new procedure for computing equivalence bands in personnel selection. Hum. Perform. 11:4351–65 [Google Scholar]
  3. Aguinis H, Lawal SO. 2013. eLancing: a review and research agenda for bridging the science–practice gap. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 23:6–17 [Google Scholar]
  4. Aiken JR, Salmon ED, Hanges PJ. 2013. The origins and legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. J. Bus. Psychol. 28:4383–99 [Google Scholar]
  5. Am. Educ. Res. Assoc., Am. Psychol. Assoc. (APA), Natl. Counc. Meas. Educ. 2014. Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing Washington, DC: APA [Google Scholar]
  6. Anti-Ageism Task Force. 2006. Ageism in America New York: Intl. Longev. Cent. [Google Scholar]
  7. Arthur W, Doverspike D, Barrett G, Miguel R. 2013. Chasing the Title VII Holy Grail: the pitfalls of guaranteeing adverse impact elimination. J. Bus. Psychol. 28:4473–85 [Google Scholar]
  8. Baldridge D, Swift M. 2013. Withholding requests for disability accommodation: the role of individual differences and disability attributes. J. Manag. 39:3743–62 [Google Scholar]
  9. Baldridge D, Veiga J. 2001. Toward a greater understanding of the willingness to request an accommodation: Can requesters' beliefs disable the Americans with Disabilities Act?. Acad. Manag. Rev. 26:185–99 [Google Scholar]
  10. Banks CG. 2004. Keeping exempt jobs exempt: how to avoid wage and hour litigation. HR Advis 10:121–27 [Google Scholar]
  11. Banks C, Murphy K. 1985. Toward narrowing the research-practice gap in performance appraisal. Pers. Psychol. 38:335–45 [Google Scholar]
  12. Barrett GV, Lueke SB. 2004. Legal and practical implications of banding for personnel selection. See Aguinis 2004 71–111
  13. Behtoui A, Neergaard A. 2009. Perception of discrimination in recruitment and the workplace. J. Immigr. Refug. Stud. 7:4347–69 [Google Scholar]
  14. Bernardin HJ, Hennessey HW Jr., Peyrefitte J. 1995. Age, racial, and gender bias as a function of criterion specificity: a test of expert testimony. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 5:163–77 [Google Scholar]
  15. Bernerth JB, Taylor SG, Walker HJ, Whitman DS. 2012. An empirical investigation of dispositional antecedents and performance-related outcomes of credit scores. J. Appl. Psychol. 97:2469–78 [Google Scholar]
  16. Biddle DA. 2010. Should employers rely on local validation studies or validity generalization (VG) to support the use of employment tests in Title VII situations?. Public Pers. Manag. 39:4307–26 [Google Scholar]
  17. Bobko P, Roth PL. 2004. Personnel selection with top-score referenced banding: on the inappropriateness of current procedures. Int. J. Sel. Assess. 12:4291–98 [Google Scholar]
  18. Bobko P, Roth PL. 2010. An analysis of two methods for assessing and indexing adverse impact: a disconnect between the academic literature and some practice. See Outtz 2010 29–49
  19. Bobko P, Roth PL, Martocchio JJ. 2004. The four-fifths rule for assessing adverse impact: an arithmetic, intuitive, and logical analysis of the rule and implications for future research and practice. Res. Pers. Hum. Resour. Manag. 23:177–98 [Google Scholar]
  20. Boardman AE. 1979. Another analysis of the EEOC “four-fifths” rule. Manag. Sci. 25:8770–76 [Google Scholar]
  21. Borgida E, Fiske ST. 2008. Beyond Common Sense: Psychological Science in the Courtroom Malden, MA: Blackwell [Google Scholar]
  22. Borman WC, Hedge JW. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of Work and Aging New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  23. Campion MA, Outtz JL, Zedeck S, Schmidt FL, Kehoe JF. et al. 2001. The controversy over score banding in personnel selection: answers to 10 key questions. Pers. Psychol. 54:1149–85 [Google Scholar]
  24. Carpenter C. 2016. Special Issue for Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society 54 Hoboken, NJ: Wiley [Google Scholar]
  25. Cascio WF, Outtz J, Zedeck S, Goldstein IL. 1991. Statistical implications of six methods of test score use in personnel selection. Hum. Perform. 4:4233–64 [Google Scholar]
  26. Chopin I, Germaine-Sahl C. 2013. Developing Anti-Discrimination Law in Europe Bruss., Belg.: Eur. Comm. Direct. Justice http://ec.europa.eu/justice/discrimination/files/comparative_analysis_2013_en.pdf [Google Scholar]
  27. Clair JA, Beatty J, MacLean TL. 2005. Out of sight but not out of mind: managing invisible social identities in the workplace. Acad. Manag. Rev. 30:178–95 [Google Scholar]
  28. Cohen CF, Cohen ME. 1998. Defining the problem and problems of definition: legal standards for expanding issues in sexual harassment. Empl. Responsib. Rights J. 11:4253–62 [Google Scholar]
  29. Colella A. 2001. Coworker distributive fairness judgments of the workplace accommodation of employees with disabilities. Acad. Manag. Rev 26:1100–16 [Google Scholar]
  30. Colella A, Bruyère SM. 2011. Disability and employment: new directions for industrial and organizational psychology. APA Handbook of Industrial/Organizational Psychology S Zedeck 473–503 Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc. [Google Scholar]
  31. Collins M, Morris S. 2008. Testing for adverse impact when sample size is small. J. Appl. Psychol. 93:2463–71 [Google Scholar]
  32. Connolly M. 2005. Discrimination law and quota fear in Britain and the United States. Int. J. Discrim. Law 6:4325–38 [Google Scholar]
  33. Copus D. 2005. Avoiding junk science: a lawyer's view. See Landy 2005 450–62
  34. Cox CB, Barron L. 2012. The effects of changing anti-discrimination standards on the evaluation of older workers. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 42:S1E198–E221 [Google Scholar]
  35. Coyle-Shapiro JA, Morrow PC, Kessler I. 2006. Serving two organizations: exploring the employment relationship of contracted employees. Hum. Resour. Manag. 45:4561–83 [Google Scholar]
  36. Crain M. 2012. Work, free will and law. Empl. Respons. Rights J 24:279–87 [Google Scholar]
  37. Crampton S, Hodge J, Mishra J. 2003. The FLSA and overtime pay. Public Pers. Manag. 32:3331–54 [Google Scholar]
  38. Crosby F, Iyer A, Clayton S, Downing R. 2003. Affirmative action: psychological data and the policy debates. Am. Psychol. 58:293–115 [Google Scholar]
  39. Cunningham-Parameter K. 2016. From Amazon to Uber: defining employment in the modern economy. Boston Univ. Law Rev. 96:51673–728 [Google Scholar]
  40. Czaja SJ, Sharit J, Charness N, Schmidt AC. 2015. The implications of changes in job demands for the continues and future employment of older workers. See Finkelstein et al. 2015 159–79
  41. Davis-Blake A, Broschak JP. 2009. Outsourcing and the changing nature of work. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 35:321–40 [Google Scholar]
  42. De Corte W. 1993. Estimating sex-related bias in job evaluation. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 66:183–96 [Google Scholar]
  43. De Corte W. 2010. Selecting predictor subsets: considering validity and adverse impact. Int. J. Sele. Assess. 18:3260–70 [Google Scholar]
  44. De Corte W, Lievens F, Sackett P. 2006. Predicting adverse impact and mean criterion performance in multistage selection. J. Appl. Psychol. 91:3523–37 [Google Scholar]
  45. De Corte W, Lievens F, Sackett PR. 2007. Combining predictors to achieve optimal trade-offs between selection quality and adverse impact. J. Appl. Psychol. 92:51380–93 [Google Scholar]
  46. De Corte W, Sackett P, Lievens F. 2011. Designing pareto-optimal selection systems: formalizing the decisions required for selection system development. J. Appl. Psychol. 96:5907–26 [Google Scholar]
  47. Dean K, Safranski S, Lee E. 2014. Religious accommodation in the workplace: understanding religious identity threat and workplace behaviors in legal disputes. Empl. Responsib. Rights J. 26:275–94 [Google Scholar]
  48. Devinatz V. 2011. The continuing controversy over right-to-work laws in the early twenty-first century. Employee Responsibilities Rights J 23:4287–93 [Google Scholar]
  49. Druart C, De Corte W. 2012. Designing Pareto-optimal systems for complex selection decisions. Organ. Res. Methods 15:3488–513 [Google Scholar]
  50. Dubé LE. 2015. Misclassification remains major issue for attorneys and the Labor Department. HR Focus 92:121–3 [Google Scholar]
  51. Dunleavy E, Morris S. 2017. Adverse Impact Analysis: Understanding Data, Statistics and Risk New York: Routledge [Google Scholar]
  52. Dunleavy E, Morris S, Howard E. 2015. Measuring adverse impact in employee selection decisions. See Hanvey & Sady 2015 1–26
  53. Dunleavy EM, Mueller LM, Buonasera AK, Kuang DC, Dunleavy DG. 2008a. On the consequences of frequent applicants in adverse impact analyses: a demonstration study. Int. J. Sele. Assessment 16:4333–44 [Google Scholar]
  54. Dunleavy E, Stuebing K, Campion J, Glenn D. 2008b. Using the 4/5ths rule as an outcome in regression analyses: A demonstrative simulation. J. Bus. Psychol. 23:3–4103–14 [Google Scholar]
  55. Dworkin LB, Squire MB. 2013. Reasonable accommodation under the new ADA: How far must employers go. ? Empl. Relat. J. 38:43–27 [Google Scholar]
  56. National Labor Relations Board. 2016. Employment law—National Labor Relations Act—NLRB classifies canvassers as employees, not independent contractors. Harv. Law Rev. 129:72039–46 [Google Scholar]
  57. Epstein RA. 1995. Forbidden Grounds: The Case Against Employment Discrimination Laws Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  58. Eren O, Ozbeklik S. 2016. What do right-to-work laws do? Evidence from a synthetic control method analysis. J. Policy Anal. Manag. 35:117394 [Google Scholar]
  59. European Network of Legal Experts in the Non-Discrimination Field. 2011. European Anti-Discrimination Law Review Utrecht, Neth.: Eq. Law Netw. [Google Scholar]
  60. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), European Court of Human Rights. 2011. Handbook on European Non-Discrimination Law Vienna, Austria: FRA http://www.refworld.org/docid/4d886bf02.html [Google Scholar]
  61. Field HS, Holley WH. 1982. The relationship of performance appraisal system characteristics to verdicts in selected employment discrimination cases. Acad. Manag. J. 25:2392–406 [Google Scholar]
  62. Finkelstein L, Truxillo D, Fraccaroli F, Kanfer R. 2015. Facing the Challenges of a Multi-Age Workforce: A Use-Inspired Approach New York: Routledge [Google Scholar]
  63. Fisher SL, Wasserman ME, Wolf PP, Wears KH. 2008. Human resource issues in outsourcing: integrating research and practice. Hum. Resour. Manag. 47:3501–23 [Google Scholar]
  64. Fitzgerald LF, Collinsworth LL. 2008. (Un)common knowledge: the legal viability of sexual harassment research. See Borgida & Fisk 2008 103–26
  65. Ford J, Kraiger K, Schechtman S. 1986. Study of race effects in objective indices and subjective evaluations of performance: a meta-analysis of performance criteria. Psychol. Bull. 99:3330–37 [Google Scholar]
  66. Friedman J. 2015. The Law of Employment Discrimination: Cases and Materials St. Paul, MN: Foundation Press, 10th ed.. [Google Scholar]
  67. Gasperson SM, Bowler MC, Wuensch KL, Bowler JL. 2013. A statistical correction to 20 years of banding. Int. J. Sele. Assess. 21:146–56 [Google Scholar]
  68. Gelfand M, Fitzgerald L, Drasgow F. 1995. The structure of sexual harassment: a confirmatory analysis across cultures and settings. J. Vocat. Behav. 47:2164–77 [Google Scholar]
  69. Ghumman S, Ryan AM, Barclay LA, Markel KS. 2013. Religious discrimination in the workplace: a review and examination of current and future trends. J. Bus. Psychol. 28:4439–54 [Google Scholar]
  70. Golden H, Hinkle S, Crosby FJ. 2001. Reactions to affirmative action: substance and semantics. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 31:173–88 [Google Scholar]
  71. Gottfredson LS. 1988. Reconsidering fairness: a matter of social and ethical priorities. J. Vocat. Behav. 33:3293–319 [Google Scholar]
  72. Green MZ. 2015. The NLRB as an überagency for the evolving workplace. Emory Law J 64:101–25 [Google Scholar]
  73. Guerin L, DelPo A. 2011. The Essential Guide to Federal Employment Law Berkeley, CA: NOLO, 3rd ed.. [Google Scholar]
  74. Gutman A. 2009. Major EEO issues related to personnel selection decisions. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 19:3232–50 [Google Scholar]
  75. Gutman A. 2012a. Age-based laws, rides, and regulations in the United States. See Borman & Hedge 2012 606–28
  76. Gutman A. 2012b. Legal constraints on personnel selection decisions. Oxford Handbook of Personnel Assessment and Selection N Schmitt 686–720 New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  77. Gutman A. 2015. Disabilities: best practices for vulnerabilities associates with the ADA. See Hanvey & Sady 2015 163–82
  78. Gutman A, Dunleavy E. 2015. A comparison of EEO law on workforce aging across English-speaking countries. See Finkelstein et al. 2015 283–310
  79. Gutman A, Koppes LL, Vodanovich SJ. 2010. EEO Law and Personnel Practices New York: Routledge, 3rd ed.. [Google Scholar]
  80. Hagen WW. 2011. Dissection and analysis of the recent cases on employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Empl. Responsib. Rights J. 23:3171–86 [Google Scholar]
  81. Han WJ, Waldfogel J. 2003. Parental leave: the impact of recent legislation on parents' leave-taking. Demography 40:1191–200 [Google Scholar]
  82. Hanges PJ, Feinberg EG. 2010. International perspectives on adverse impact: Europe and beyond. See Outtz 2010 349–74
  83. Hanvey C, Sady K. 2015. Practitioner's Guide to Legal Issues in Organizations New York: Springer [Google Scholar]
  84. Harrison D, Kravitz D, Mayer D, Leslie L, Lev-Arey D. 2006. Understanding attitudes toward affirmative action programs in employment: summary and meta-analysis of 35 years of research. J. Appl. Psychol. 91:51013–36 [Google Scholar]
  85. Heilman ME, Haynes MC. 2008. Subjectivity in the appraisal process: a facilitator of gender bias in work settings. See Borgida & Fisk 2008 127–56
  86. Henle CA. 2004. Case review of the legal status of banding. Hum. Perform. 17:4415–32 [Google Scholar]
  87. Hennessey HW, Bernardin HJ. 2003. The relationship between performance appraisal criterion specificity and statistical evidence of discrimination. Hum. Resour. Manag. 42:2143–58 [Google Scholar]
  88. Hogler R. 2011. How Right to Work is destroying the American labor movement: from the Ku Klux Klan to the Tea Party. Empl. Responsib. Rights J. 23:4105–19 [Google Scholar]
  89. Hough LM, Oswald FL, Ployhart RE. 2001. Determinants, detection and amelioration of adverse impact in personnel selection procedures: issues, evidence and lessons learned. Int. J. Sele. Assess. 9:1–2152–94 [Google Scholar]
  90. Hunter RC, Shoben EW. 1998. Disparate impact discrimination: American oddity or internationally accepted concept. Berkeley J. Empl. Labor Law 19:1108–52 [Google Scholar]
  91. Hurley JE. 2010. Merit determinants of ADA Title I allegations involving discharge: implications for human resources management and development. Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour. 12:4466–83 [Google Scholar]
  92. Jacobs R, Murphy K, Silva J. 2013. Unintended consequences of EEO enforcement policies: Being big is worse than being bad. J. Bus. Psychol. 28:4467–71 [Google Scholar]
  93. Jeanneret R. 2005. Professional and technical authorities and guidelines. See Landy 2005 47–100
  94. Johnson JW, Steel P, Scherbaum CA, Hoffman CC, Jeanneret PR, Foster J. 2010. Validation is like motor oil: Synthetic is better. Ind. Organ. Psychol.: Perspect. Sci. Pract. 3:305–28 [Google Scholar]
  95. Kalev A. 2014. How you downsize is who you downsize: biased formalization, accountability, and managerial diversity. Am. Sociol. Rev. 79:1109–35 [Google Scholar]
  96. Katz M, LeVan H. 2004. Legal protection from discrimination based on sexual orientation: findings from litigation. Empl. Responsib. Rights J. 16:4195–209 [Google Scholar]
  97. Kim M. 2015. Pay secrecy and the gender pay gap in the United States. Ind. Relat. 54:4648–68 [Google Scholar]
  98. King E, Avery D, Sackett P. 2013. Editorial: Three perspectives of employment discrimination 50 years after the Civil Rights Act—a promise fulfilled?. J. Bus. Psychol. 28:4375–82 [Google Scholar]
  99. Knapp DE, Custis GA. 2000. Same-sex sexual harassment: a legal assessment with implications for organizational policy. Empl. Responsib. Rights J. 12:3295–304 [Google Scholar]
  100. Kravitz DA. 2008. The diversity-validity dilemma: Beyond selection—the role of affirmative action. Pers. Psychol. 61:1173–93 [Google Scholar]
  101. Landy FJ. 1986. Stamp collecting versus science: validation as hypothesis testing. Am. Psychol. 41:111183–92 [Google Scholar]
  102. Landy FJ. 2005. Employment Discrimination Litigation: Behavioral, Quantitative and Legal Perspectives San Francisco: Jossey-Bass [Google Scholar]
  103. Landy FJ. 2008. The tenuous bridge between research and reality: the importance of research design in making inferences about work behavior. See Borgida & Fisk 2008 383–97
  104. Leslie L, Mayer D, Kravitz D. 2014. The stigma of affirmative action: a stereotyping-based theory and meta-analytic test of the consequences for performance. Acad. Manag. J. 57:4964–89 [Google Scholar]
  105. Levy R. 2016. Impact of the gig economy on legal classification of health care workers. J. Health Care Compliance 18:245–46 [Google Scholar]
  106. Liden RC, Wayne SJ, Kraimer ML, Sparrowe RT. 2003. The dual commitments of contingent workers: an examination of contingents' commitments to the agency and the organization. J. Organ. Behav. 24:5609–25 [Google Scholar]
  107. Malhmann M. 2015. Country Report: Non-Discrimination, Germany Luxembourg: Publ. Off. EU [Google Scholar]
  108. Malos S, Haynes P, Bowal P. 2003. A contingency approach to the employment relationship: form, function, and effectiveness implications. Empl. Responsib. Rights J. 15:3149–67 [Google Scholar]
  109. Martin DC, Bartol KM, Kehoe PE. 2000. The legal ramifications of performance appraisal: the growing significance. Public Pers. Manag. 29:3479–405 [Google Scholar]
  110. Mayer G. 2004. Union Membership Trends in the United States Washington, DC: Congr. Res. Serv. [Google Scholar]
  111. McDaniel MA. 2009. Gerrymandering in personnel selection: a review of practice. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 19:3262–70 [Google Scholar]
  112. McDaniel M, Kepes S, Banks G. 2011. The Uniform Guidelines are a detriment to the field of personnel selection. Ind. Organ. Psychol.: Perspect. Sci. Pract. 4:4494–514 [Google Scholar]
  113. McGoldrick AE, Arrowsmith J. 2001. Discrimination by age: the organizational response. Ageism in Work and Employment I Glover, M Branine 75–96 Burlington, VT: Ashgate [Google Scholar]
  114. McKay P, McDaniel M. 2006. A reexamination of black-white mean differences in work performance: more data, more moderators. J. Appl. Psychol. 91:3538–54 [Google Scholar]
  115. McMahon B, Hurley J, West S, Chan F, Roessler R, Rumrill P. 2008. A comparison of EEOC closures involving hiring versus other prevalent discrimination issues under the Americans with Disabilities Act. J. Occup. Rehabil. 18:2106–11 [Google Scholar]
  116. Mitlacher L. 2005. Temporary agency work, the changing employment relationship and its impact on human resource management. Manag. Revue 16:3370–88 [Google Scholar]
  117. Moss K, Ullman M, Starrett BE, Burris S, Johnsen MC. 1999. Outcomes of employment discrimination charges filed under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Psychiatr. Serv. 50:1028–35 [Google Scholar]
  118. Murphy KR. 2002. Can conflicting perspectives on the role of g in personnel selection be resolved?. Hum. Perform. 15:1–2173–86 [Google Scholar]
  119. Murphy KR. 2009. Is content-related evidence useful in validating selection tests?. Ind. Organ. Psychol.: Perspect. Sci. Pract. 2:4517–26 [Google Scholar]
  120. Murphy KR. 2010. How a broader definition of the criterion domain changes our thinking about adverse impact. Adverse Impact J Outtz 137–60 San Francisco: Jossey-Bass [Google Scholar]
  121. Murphy KR, Dzieweczynski KJL, Yang Z. 2009. Positive manifold limits the relevance of content-matching strategies for validating selection test batteries. J. Appl. Psychol. 94:41018–31 [Google Scholar]
  122. Murphy KR, Jacobs RR. 2012. Using effect size measures to reform the determination of adverse impact in equal employment litigation. Psychol. Public Policy Law 18:3477–99 [Google Scholar]
  123. Murphy KR, Jacobs RR. 2017. When and why do different indices lead to different conclusions about adverse impact?. See Dunleavy & Morris 2017 113–35
  124. Murphy KR, Myors B, Wolach A. 2014. Statistical Power Analysis: A Simple and General Model for Traditional and Modern Hypothesis Tests New York: Tayor & Francis, 4th ed.. [Google Scholar]
  125. Myors B, Lievens F, Schollaert E, Van Hoye G, Cronshaw SF, Mladinic A. et al. 2008. International perspective on the legal environment for selection. Ind. Organ. Psychol.: Perspect. Sci. Pract. 1:3206–46 [Google Scholar]
  126. Nesheim T, Olsen KM, Kalleberg AL. 2007. Externalizing the core firms' use of employment intermediaries in the information and communication technology industries. Hum. Resour. Manag. 46:2247–64 [Google Scholar]
  127. Newman D, Jacobs R, Bartram D. 2007. Choosing the best method for local validity estimation: relative accuracy of meta-analysis versus a local study versus Bayes-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 92:51394–413 [Google Scholar]
  128. Ng TWH, Feldman DC. 2008. The relationship of age to ten dimensions of job performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 92:2392–423 [Google Scholar]
  129. Nordlund WJ. 1988. A brief history of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Labor Law J 39:11715–28 [Google Scholar]
  130. Outtz JL. 2002. The role of cognitive ability tests in employment selection. Hum. Perform 15:1/2161–71 [Google Scholar]
  131. Outtz JL. 2010. Adverse Impact: Implications for Organizational Staffing and High Stakes Selection New York: Routledge [Google Scholar]
  132. Outtz JL, Newman DA. 2010. A theory of adverse impact. See Outtz 2010 53–94
  133. Paludi MA, Paludi CA, DeSouza ER. 2011. Praeger Handbook on Understanding and Preventing Workplace Discrimination 1–2 Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger [Google Scholar]
  134. Perez TE. 2015. The Fair Labor Standards Act: a living document. J. Econ. Soc. 54:4529–32 [Google Scholar]
  135. Pesta B, Hrivnak M, Dunegan K. 2007. Parsing work environments along the dimensions of sexual and non-sexual harassment: drawing lines in office sand. Empl. Responsib. Rights J. 19:145–55 [Google Scholar]
  136. Ployhart RE, Holtz BC. 2008. The diversity-validity dilemma: strategies for reducing racioethnic and sex subgroup differences and adverse impact in selection. Pers. Psychol. 61:1153–72 [Google Scholar]
  137. Pope JG. 2009. A brief history of United States labor and employment law. The Oxford International Encyclopedia of Legal History 3 SM Katz 477–86 New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  138. Posthuma RA. 2002. Employee selection procedures and the business necessity defense. Appl. Hum. Resour. Manag. Res. 7:253–64 [Google Scholar]
  139. Posthuma RA, Campion MA. 2009. Age stereotypes in the workplace: common stereotypes, moderators, and future research directions. J. Manag. 35:1158–88 [Google Scholar]
  140. Posthuma R, Wagstaff M, Campion MA. 2012. Age stereotypes and workplace age discrimination: a framework for future research. See Borman & Hedge 2012 298–312
  141. Pryor K, Dunleavy EAK, Cohen D. 2014. Funny you should mention it: new disability EEO/AA regulations for federal contractors. Ind. Organ. Psychol.: Perspect. Sci. Pract. 7:2220–24 [Google Scholar]
  142. Pulakos E, Schmitt N, Chan D. 1996. Models of job performance ratings: an examination of ratee race, ratee gender, and rater level effects. Hum. Perform. 9:2103–19 [Google Scholar]
  143. Pyburn KM, Ployhart RE, Kravitz DA. 2008. The diversity-validity dilemma: overview and legal context. Pers. Psychol. 61:1143–51 [Google Scholar]
  144. Ragins BR. 2008. Disclosure disconnects: antecedents and consequences of disclosing invisible stigma across life domains. Acad. Manag. Rev. 33:1194–215 [Google Scholar]
  145. Ree MJ, Carretta TR. 2002. g2K. Hum. Perform. 15:1–23–23 [Google Scholar]
  146. Ren LR, Paetzold RL, Colella A. 2008. A meta-analysis of experimental studies on the effects of disability on human resource judgments. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 18:3191–203 [Google Scholar]
  147. Rhoodie EM. 1989. Discrimination Against Women: A Global Survey of Economic, Educational, Social and Political Status of Women London: McFarland [Google Scholar]
  148. Rolfe H, Dhudwar A. 2009. Perceptions of Discrimination in Employment London: Natl. Inst. Econ. Soc. Res. [Google Scholar]
  149. Roth P, Bevier C, Bobko P, Switzer F, Tyler P. 2001. Ethnic group differences in cognitive ability in employment and educational settings: a meta-analysis. Pers. Psychol. 54:2297–330 [Google Scholar]
  150. Roth PL, Bobko P, Switser FS. 2006. Modeling the behavior of the 4/5ths rule for determining adverse impact: reasons for caution. J. Appl. Psychol. 91:3507–22 [Google Scholar]
  151. Roth PL, Huffcutt AI, Bobko P. 2003. Ethnic group differences in measures of job performance: a new meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 88:4694–706 [Google Scholar]
  152. Roth PL, Purvis K, Bobko P. 2012. A meta-analysis of gender group differences for measures of job performance in field studies. J. Manag. 38:2719–39 [Google Scholar]
  153. Rotundo M, Nguyen D, Sackett P. 2001. A meta-analytic review of gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment. J. Appl. Psychol. 86:5914–22 [Google Scholar]
  154. Rumrill P, Fitzgerald S, McMahon B. 2010. ADA Title I allegations related to unlawful discharge: characteristics of charging parties. Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour. 12:4429–47 [Google Scholar]
  155. Ryan AM, Tippins N. 2009. Designing and Implementing Global Selection Systems Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell [Google Scholar]
  156. Sackett PR, Ellingson JE. 1997. The effects of forming multi-predictor composites on group differences and adverse impact. Pers. Psychol. 50:3707–21 [Google Scholar]
  157. Sackett PR, Schmitt N, Ellingson J, Kabin M. 2001. High-stakes testing in employment, credentialing, and higher education: prospects in a post-affirmative-action world. Am. Psychol. 56:4302–18 [Google Scholar]
  158. Sackett PR, Wilk SL. 1994. Within-group norming and other forms of score adjustment in preemployment testing. Am. Psychol. 49:11929–54 [Google Scholar]
  159. Salgado JF, Anderson N, Moscoso S, Bertua C, DeFruyt F. 2003. International validity generalization of GMA and cognitive abilities: a European Community meta-analysis. Pers. Psychol. 56:3573–605 [Google Scholar]
  160. Santuzzi AM, Waltz PR, Finkelstein LM, Rupp DE. 2014. Invisible disabilities: challenges for employees and organizations. Ind. Organ. Psychol.: Perspect. Sci. Pract. 7:2204–19 [Google Scholar]
  161. Scherbaum CA. 2005. Synthetic validity: past, present, future. Pers. Psychol. 58:2481–515 [Google Scholar]
  162. Schmidt FL, Hunter JE. 1999. The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychol. Bull. 124:2262–74 [Google Scholar]
  163. Schmidt FL, Hunter JE. 2003. History, development, evolution, and impact of validity generalization and meta-analysis methods, 1975–2001. Validity Generalization: A Critical Review KR Murphy 31–65 Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum [Google Scholar]
  164. Schmitt N, Rogers W, Chan D, Sheppard L, Jennings D. 1997. Adverse impact and predictive efficiency of various predictor combinations. J. Appl. Psychol. 82:5719–30 [Google Scholar]
  165. Smits SJ. 2004. Disability and employment in the USA: the quest for best practices. Disabil. Soc. 19:6647–62 [Google Scholar]
  166. Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. (SIOP). 2003. Principles for the Validation and Use of Personnel Selection Procedures Bowling Green, OH: SIOP, 4th ed.. [Google Scholar]
  167. Thacker RA. 2015. The application of social exchange to commitment bonds of pro-union employees: cognitive calculations of reciprocity. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 25:3287–97 [Google Scholar]
  168. Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures. 1978. 29 C.F.R. 1607. http://www.uniformguidelines.com/uniformguidelines.html
  169. US Department of Labor. 2015. The application of the Fair Labor Standards Act's “Suffer or Permit” standard in the identification of employees who are misclassified as independent contractors Admin. Interpret. 2015-1 Wage Hour Divis., US Dep. Labor http://www.dol.gov/whd/workers/Misclassification/AI-2015_1.pdf [Google Scholar]
  170. Vance R, Colella A. 1990. The utility of utility analysis. Hum. Perform. 3:2123–39 [Google Scholar]
  171. Van Iddekinge CH, Ployhart RE. 2008. Developments in the criterion-related validation of selection procedures: a critical review and recommendations for practice. Pers. Psychol. 61:4871–925 [Google Scholar]
  172. Volpone SD, Tonidandel S, Avery DR, Caastel S. 2015. Exploring the use of credit scores in selection processes: Beware of adverse impact. J. Bus. Psychol 30:357–72 [Google Scholar]
  173. Waldman DA, Avolio BJ. 1986. A meta-analysis of age differences in job performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 71:133–38 [Google Scholar]
  174. Waldman DA, Avolio BJ. 1991. Race effects in performance evaluations: controlling for ability, education, and experience. J. Appl. Psychol. 76:6897–901 [Google Scholar]
  175. Wears KH, Fisher SL. 2012. Who is the employer in the triangular employment relationship? Sorting through the definitional confusion. Empl. Responsib. Rights J. 24:3159–76 [Google Scholar]
  176. White House. 2015. Gender pay gap: recent trends and explanations. Counc. Econ. Advis. Brief. April [Google Scholar]
  177. Whittle R. 2002. The Framework Directive for equal treatment in employment and occupation: an analysis from a disability rights perspective. Eur. Law Rev. 27:3303–26 [Google Scholar]
  178. Wiener RL, Farnum KS. 2013. The psychology of jury decision making in age discrimination claims. Psychol. Public Policy Law 19:3395–409 [Google Scholar]
  179. Williams KZ, Schafer MM, Ellis EE. 2013. Legal risk in selection: an analysis of process and tools. J. Bus. Psychol. 28:4401–10 [Google Scholar]
  180. Wingate P, Thornton G, McIntyre K, Frame J. 2003. Organizational downsizing and age discrimination litigation: the influence of personnel practices and statistical evidence on litigation outcomes. Law Hum. Behav. 27:187–108 [Google Scholar]
  181. Zedeck S. 2010. Adverse impact: history and evolution. See Outtz 2010 3–28
  182. Zimmer MJ, Sullivan CA, White RH. 2002. Case Materials on Employment Discrimination New York: Aspen Publ, 8th ed.. [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104435
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032117-104435
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error