Page images

4" from this office dated January 30. 1970. Nothing in this part is intended to amend 41 CFR Part 60-3 or 41 CFR 60-20.


DURES (1978)

(2) Where Formal and Scored Procedures Are Used $ 60-3.7 Use of Other Validity Studies A. Validity Studies Not Conducted by the

B. Use of Criterion-Related Validity Evi-

dence From Other Sources
(1) Validity Evidence
(2) Job Similarity

(3) Fairness Evidence C. Validity Evidence From Multiunit

Study D. Other Significant Variables $ 60-3.8 Cooperative Studies

A. Encouragement of Cooperative Studies B. Standards for Use of Cooperative Stud

ies $ 60-3.9 No Assumption of Validity A. Unacceptable Substitutes for Evidence

of Validity B. Encouragement of Professional Super

vision $ 60-3.10 Employment Agencies and Em

ployment Services A. Where Selection Procedures Are De

vised by Agency B. Where Selection Procedures Are De

vised Elsewhere
$ 60-3.11 Disparate Treatment
$ 60-3.12 Retesting of Applicants
$ 60-3.13 Affirmative Action

A. Affirmative Action Obligations
B. Encouragement of Voluntary Affirma-

tive Action Programs

GENERAL PRINCIPLES $ 60-3.1 Statement of Purpose

A. Need for Uniformity-Issuing Agencies B. Purpose of Guidelines

C. Relation to Prior Guidelines $ 60-3.2 Scope

A. Application of Guidelines
B. Employment Decisions
C. Selection Procedures
D. Limitations

E. Indian Preference Not Affected $ 60-3.3 Discrimination Defined: Relation

ship Between Use of Selection Proce

dures and Discrimination A. Procedure Having Adverse Impact Con

stitutes Discrimination Unless Justi-
Consideration of Suitable Alternative

Selection Procedures
$ 60-3.4 Information on Impact

A. Records Concerning Impact
B. Applicable Race, Sex, and Ethnic

Groups for Recordkeeping
C. Evaluation of Selection Rates. The

“Bottom Line" D. Adverse Impact and the “Four-Fifths

Rule” E. Consideration of User's Equal Employ.

ment Opportunity Posture $ 60-3.5 General Standards for Validity

Studies A. Acceptable Types of Validity Studies B. Criterion-Related, Content, and Con

struct Validity C. Guidelines Are Consistent With Profes

sional Standards D. Need for Documentation of Validity E. Accuracy and Standardization F. Caution Against Selection on Basis of

Knowledges, Skills, or Abilities

Learned in Brief Orientation Period G. Method of Use of Selection Procedures H. Cutoff Scores I. Use of Selection Procedures for Higher

Level Jobs J. Interim Use of Selection Procedures K. Review of Validity Studies for Curren

cy $ 60-3.6 Use of Selection Procedures Which

Have Not Been Validated A. Use of Alternate Selection Procedures

To Eliminate Adverse Impact B. Where Validity Studies Cannot or Need

Not Be Performed (1) Where Informal or Unscored Procedures Are Used

TECHNICAL STANDARDS $ 60-3.14 Technical Standards for Validity

Studies A. Validity Studies Should be Based on

Review of Information About the Job B. Technical Standards for Criterion-Re

lated Validity Studies
(1) Technical Feasibility
(2) Analysis of the Job
(3) Criterion Measures
(4) Representativeness of the Sample
(5) Statistical Relationships

(6) Operational Use of Selection Procedures

(7) Over-Statement of Validity Findings
(8) Fairness

(a) Unfairness Defined
(b) Investigation of Fairness

(c) General Considerations in Fairness Investigations

(d) When Unfairness Is Shown

(e) Technical Feasibility of Fairness Studies

(f) Continued Use of Selection Procedures When Fairness Studies not Feasible C. Technical Standards for Content Valid

ity Studies (1) Appropriateness of Content Validity Studies

(2) Job Analysis for Content Validity
(3) Development of Selection Procedure

(4) Standards for Demonstrating Content Validity

(5) Reliability
(6) Prior Training or Experience
(7) Training Success
(8) Operational Use

(9) Ranking Based on Content Validity Studies D. Technical Standards for Construct Va

lidity Studies (1) Appropriateness of Construct Validity Studies

(2) Job Analysis for Construct Validity Studies (3) Relationship to the Job

(4) Use of Construct Validity Study Without New Criterion-Related Evidence

(a) Standards for Use

(b) Determination of Common Work Behaviors

(9) Accuracy and Completeness D. Construct Validity Studies

(1) User(s), Location(s), and Date(s) of Study

(2) Problem and Setting (3) Construct Definition (4) Job Analysis (5) Job Titles and Codes (6) Selection Procedure (7) Relationship to Job Performance (8) Alternative Procedures Investigated (9) Uses and Applications (10) Accuracy and Completeness (11) Source Data

(12) Contact Person E. Evidence of Validity From Other Stud

ies (1) Evidence From Criterion-Related Validity Studies

(a) Job Information
(b) Relevance of Criteria
(c) Other Variables
(d) Use of the Selection Procedure

(e) Bibliography (2) Evidence From Content Validity Studies

(3) Evidence From Construct Validity Studies F. Evidence of Validity From Cooperative

G. Selection for Higher Level Jobs
H. Interim Use of Selection Procedures

DEFINITIONS $ 60-3.16 Definitions


EVIDENCE $ 60-3.15 Documentation of Impact and Va

lidity Evidence A. Required Information

(1) Simplified Recordkeeping for Users With Less Than 100 Employees (2) Information on Impact

(a) Collection of Information on Impact

(b) When Adverse Impact Has Been Eliminated in the Total Selection Process

(c) When Data Insufficient to Deter-
mine Impact
(3) Documentation of Validity Evidence

(a) Type of Evidence
(b) Form of Report

(c) Completeness
B. Criterion-Related Validity Studies

(1) User(s), Location(s), and Date(s) of Study

(2) Problem and Setting

(3) Job analysis or Review of Job Information

(4) Job Titles and Codes
(5) Criterion Measures
(6) Sample Description
(7) Description of Selection Procedure
(8) Techniques and Results
(9) Alternative Procedures Investigated
(10) Uses and Applications
(11) Source Data
(12) Contact Person

(13) Accuracy and Completeness C. Content Validity Studies

(1) User(s), Location(s), and Date(s) of Study

(2) Problem and Setting
(3) Job Analysis--Content of the Job
(4) Selection Procedure and Its Content

(5) Relationship Between Selection Procedure and the Job

(6) Alternative Procedures Investigated
(7) Uses and Applications
(8) Contact Person

APPENDIX $ 60-3.17 Policy Statement on Affirmative

Action (see section 13B) $ 60-3.18 Citations

AUTHORITY: Secs. 201, 202, 203, 203(a), 205, 206(a), 301, 303(b), and 403(b) of E.O. 11246; as amended by sec. 715 of Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2000(e)-14).

SOURCE: 43 FR 38295, 38314, August 25, 1978.


$ 60-3.1 Statement of purpose.

A. Need for uniformity-Issuing agencies. The Federal government's need for a uniform set of principles on the question of the use of tests and other selection procedures has long been recognized. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Civil Service Commission, the Depart. ment of Labor, and the Department of Justice jointly have adopted these uniform guidelines to meet that need, and to apply the same principles to the

Federal Government as are applied to ment of Justice in exercising its reother employers.

sponsibilities under Federal law; by B. Purpose of guidelines. These the Office of Revenue Sharing of the guidelines incorporate a single set of Department of the Treasury under principles which are designed to assist the State and Local Fiscal Assistance employers, labor organizations, em Act of 1972, as amended; and by any ployment agencies, and licensing and other Federal agency which adopts certification boards to comply with re- them. quirements of Federal law prohibiting B. Employment decisions. These employment practices which discrimi

guidelines apply to tests and other senate on grounds of race, color, reli

lection procedures which are used as a gion, sex, and national origin. They

basis for any employment decision. are designed to provide a framework

Employment decisions include but are for determining the proper use of tests

not limited to hiring, promotion, deand other selection procedures. These

motion, membership (for example, in a guidelines do not require a user to con

labor organization), referral, retenduct validity studies of selection proce

tion, and licensing and certification, to dures where no adverse impact results.

the extent that licensing and certificaHowever, all users are encouraged to

tion may be covered by Federal equal use selection procedures which are

employment opportunity law. Other valid, especially users operating under

selection decisions, such as selection merit principles. C. Relation to prior guidelines.

for training or transfer, may also be These guidelines are based upon and

considered employment decisions if supersede previously issued guidelines

they lead to any of the decisions listed on employee selection procedures.

above. These guidelines have been built upon

C. Selection procedures. These guidecourt decisions, the previously issued

lines apply only to selection proceguidelines of the agencies, and the

dures which are used as a basis for practical experience of the agencies, as

making employment decisions. For exwell as the standards of the psycho

ample, the use of recruiting procelogical profession. These guidelines

dures designed to attract members of a are intended to be consistent with ex particular race, sex, or ethnic group, isting law.

which were previously denied employ

ment opportunities or which are cur$ 60-3.2 Scope.

rently underutilized, may be necessary A. Application of guidelines. These

to bring an employer into compliance guidelines will be applied by the Equal

with Federal law, and is frequently an Employment Opportunity Commission essential element of any effective afin the enforcement of title VII of the firmative action program; but recruitCivil Rights Act of 1964, as amended ment practices are not considered by by the Equal Employment Opportuni these guidelines to be selection procety Act of 1972 (hereinafter “Title dures. Similarly, these guidelines do VII”); by the Department of Labor, not pertain to the question of the lawand the contract compliance agencies fulness of a seniority system within until the transfer of authority contem the meaning of section 703(h), Execuplated by the President's Reorganiza- tive Order 11246 or other provisions of tion Plan No. 1 of 1978, in the adminis- Federal law or regulation, except to tration and enforcement of Executive the extent that such systems utilize Order 11246, as amended by Executive selection procedures to determine Order 11375 (hereinafter “Executive qualifications or abilities to perform Order 11246”); by the Civil Service the job. Nothing in these guidelines is Commission and other Federal agen- intended or should be interpreted as cies subject to section 717 of Title VII; discouraging the use of a selection proby the Civil Service Commission in ex- cedure for the purpose of determining ercising its responsibilities toward qualifications or for the purpose of seState and local governments under lection on the basis of relative qualifisection 208(b)(1) of the Intergovern- cations, if the selection procedure had mental-Personnel Act; by the Depart. been validated in accord with these

guidelines for each such purpose for which it is to be used.

D. Limitations. These guidelines apply only to persons subject to Title VII, Executive Order 11246, or other equal employment opportunity requirements of Federal law. These guidelines do not apply to responsibilities under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, as amended, not to discriminate on the basis of age, or under sections 501, 503, and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, not to discriminate on the basis of handicap.

E. Indian preference not affected. These guidelines do not restrict any obligation imposed or right granted by Federal law to users to extend a preference in employment to Indians living on or near an Indian reservation in connection with employment opportunities on or near an Indian reservation.

or validating them in accord with these guidelines. If a user has made a reasonable effort to become aware of such alternative procedures and validity has been demonstrated in accord with these guidelines, the use of the test or other selection procedure may continue until such time as it should reasonably be reviewed for currency. Whenever the user is shown an alternative selection procedure with evidence of less adverse impact and substantial evidence of validity for the same job in similar circumstances, the user should investigate it to determine the appropriateness of using or validating it in accord with these guidelines. This subsection is not intended to preclude the combination of procedures into a significantly more valid procedure, if the use of such a combination has been shown to be in compliance with the guidelines.

8 60-3.3 Discrimination defined: Relation $ 60-3.4 Information on impact. ship between use of selection proce

A. Records concerning impact. Each dures and discrimination.

user should maintain and have availaA. Procedure having adverse impact ble for inspection records or other inconstitutes discrimination unless jus formation which will disclose the tified. The use of any selection proce- impact which its tests and other selecdure which has an adverse impact on tion procedures have upon employthe hiring, promotion, or other em ment opportunities of persons by idenployment or membership opportuni tifiable race, sex, or ethnic group as ties of members of any race, sex, or set forth in subparagraph B below in ethnic group will be considered to be order to determine compliance with discriminatory and inconsistent with these guidelines. Where there are these guidelines, unless the procedure large numbers of applicants and procehas been validated in accordance with dures are administered frequently, these guidelines, or the provisions of such information may be retained on a section 6 below are satisfied.

sample basis, provided that the sample B. Consideration of suitable alterna is appropriate in terms of the appli. tive selection procedures. Where two cant population and adequate in size. or more selection procedures are avail. B. Applicahle race, sex, and ethnic able which serve the user's legitimate groups for recordkeeping. The records interest in efficient and trustworthy called for by this section are to be workmanship, and which are substan- maintained by sex, and the following tially equally valid for a given pur races and ethnic groups: Blacks (Nepose, the user should use the proce groes), American Indians (including dure which has been demonstrated to Alaskan Natives), Asians (including have the lesser adverse impact. Ac- Pacific Islanders), Hispanic (including cordingly, whenever a validity study is persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, called for by these guidelines, the user Cuban, Central or South American, or should include, as a part of the valid other Spanish origin or culture regardity study, an investigation of suitable less of race), whites (Caucasians) other alternative selection procedures and than Hispanic, and totals. The race, suitable alternative methods of using sex, and ethnic classifications called the selection procedure which have as for by this section are consistent with little adverse impact as possible, to de- the Equal Employment Opportunity termine the appropriateness of using Standard Form 100, Employer Infor

mation Report EEO-1 series of re- D. Adverse impact and the "fourports. The user should adopt safe. fifths rule.A selection rate for any guards to insure that the records re- race, sex, or ethnic group which is less quired by this paragraph are used for than four-fifths (%) (or eighty perappropriate purposes such as deter- cent) of the rate for the group with mining adverse impact, or (where re- the highest rate will generally be required) for developing and monitoring garded by the Federal enforcement affirmative action programs, and that agencies as evidence of adverse impact, such records are not used improperly. while a greater than four-fifths rate See sections 4E and 17(4), below.

will generally not be regarded by FedC. Evaluation of selection rates. The eral enforcement agencies as evidence bottom line.” If the information of adverse impact. Smaller differences called for by sections 4A and B above in selection rate may nevertheless conshows that the total selection process stitute adverse impact, where they are for a job has an adverse impact, the significant in both statistical and pracindividual components of the selection tical terms or where a user's actions process should be evaluated for ad. have discouraged applicants disproporverse impact. If this information tionately on grounds of race, sex, or shows that the total selection process ethnic group. Greater differences in does not have an adverse impact, the selection rate may not constitute adFederal enforcement agencies, in the verse impact where the differences are exercise of their administrative and based on small numbers and are not prosecutorial discretion, in usual cir- statistically significant, or where specumstances, will not expect a user to cial recruiting or other programs cause evaluate the individual components the pool of minority or female candifor adverse impact, or to validate such dates to be atypical of the normal pool individual components, and will not of applicants from that group. Where take enforcement action based upon the user's evidence concerning the adverse impact of any component of impact of a selection procedure indithat process, including the separate cates adverse impact but is based upon parts of a multipart selection proce- numbers which are too small to be redure or any separate procedure that is liable, evidence concerning the impact used as an alternative method of selec- of the procedure over a longer period tion. However, in the following circum- of time and/or evidence concerning stances the Federal enforcement agen the impact which the selection procecies will expect a user to evaluate the dure had when used in the same individual components for adverse manner in similar circumstances elseimpact and may, where appropriate, where may be considered in determintake enforcement action with respect ing adverse impact. Where the user to the individual components: (1) has not maintained data on adverse where the selection procedure is a sig- impact as required by the documentanificant factor in the continuation of tion section of applicable guidelines, patterns of assignments of incumbent the Federal enforcement agencies may employees caused by prior discrimina draw an inference of adverse impact of tory employment practices, (2) where the selection process from the failure the weight of court decisions or ad- of the user to maintain such data, if ministrative interpretations hold that the user has an underutilization of a a specific procedure (such as height or group in the job category, as compared weight requirements or no-arrest rec- to the group's representation in the ords) is not job related in the same or relevant labor market or, in the case similar circumstances. In unusual cir- of jobs filled from within, the applicacumstances, other than those listed in ble work force. (1) and (2) above, the Federal enforce E. Consideration of user's equal emment agencies may request a user to ployment opportunity posture. In carevaluate the individual components rying out their obligations, the Federfor adverse impact and may, where ap al enforcement agencies will consider propriate, take enforcement action the general posture of the user with with respect to the individual compo- respect to equal employment opportunent.

nity for the job or group of jobs in

41) 113

() --79--22

« PreviousContinue »