1. Avoiding Discrimination
Case Study: Clara Watson
Black Forth Worth Bank and Trust Teller
Applied and turned down for supervisor job four times
Filed discrimination suit, went clear to Supreme Court

2. Clara Watson Case
Bank’s Defense: All promotion decisions based strictly on job evaluations
Problems:
White supervisors hired 14.8% of white applicants, only 3.5% of black applicants
Same supervisors rated black employees 10 points lower on average on annual salary evaluations
Outcome: Blacks were promoted more slowly

3. Clara Watson Case: Questions
Can we tell if Clara Watson was discriminated against, or was she less qualified?
Are the statistics sufficient to show discrimination?

4. Avoiding Discrimination: 3 Steps
Job Analysis
Job Description
Job Specifications
Recruitment and Selection
Information dissemination
Use of non-traditional employees in recruitment efforts
Objective tests and subjective evaluations
Job description: focus on specific activities, not people who traditionally hold the job. Only those qualifications that will not exclude one sex or other protected group should be listed. Jobs that are unnecessarily identified with one sex or other can be redefined to be more attractive for men/women. Jobs can be redesigned to accommodate handicapped.

5. Objective Tests Measure specific skills (like typing speed)
Measure intelligence and aptitude for certain types of work
Gauge suitability to employment and work environment

6. Objective Tests Under the Law
These three types of test are allowable IF:
Do not have disparate impact.
Tests are validated
Tests must be shown to be reliable predictors of successful performance.
Duke Power’s tests were not proven to be closely correlated with successful job performance.
- Not sufficient to show that successful employees score high; must show that those with lower test scores would not be able to perform the job as well; comparing scores of inexperienced applicants with those on the job is not sufficient proof (we would have to know how the current job holders would have scored before they took the job.)

7. Subjective Evaluations
Should disparate impact and validity tests apply to subjective evaluations?

8. Clara Watson Case Non-Issues
Statistical representation was not in question.
Disparate impact of procedures was not in question (there was disparate impact).

9. Clara Watson Case Issues
Issue One: Did subjective evaluations rather than objective tests make a difference in the Title VII interpretation?
Issue Two: Should requirements for validation be applied to subjective evaluations?

10. APA Friend of The Court Brief
Outlined common biases in subjective testing
Halo Effect – single trait exercises undue influence
Stereotyping – assumptions about a group influence evaluator
“Similar to Me” phenomenon
Similar to me phenomenon: people with traits similar to my own are better.

11. APA Friend of The Court Brief
Rating Scale Problems:
Evaluators tend to grade people toward the center of the scale
Leniency
Racial factors seem to affect scores

12. APA Friend of the Court Brief
Recommended APA Standards for testing and personnel selection:
Thorough Job Analysis
Interview / Rating Scale / Experience requirements should only relate directly to the requirements outlined in the job analysis
Evaluations reflects the person being evaluated, not the evaluator
Thorough training
Job Analyis: Job Description, Job Specifications

13. Clara Watson Case – Findings
Supreme court found:
Tests lacked any validation
Only one white male conducted interviews
No job analysis was done
Questions were unrelated to job qualifications
Traits on rating scale were vague, unrelated to performance
No steps taken to avoid race effects on the scales
Supervisors were untrained in nondiscriminatory evaluation procedures.

14. Clara Watson Case – Verdict
8 – 0 in favor of Watson
Established the theory that disparate impact appplied to subjective evaluations as well as objective tests.

15. Measuring Disparate Impact
See URL at