The “maybe” step: When adverse reactions are indicated, we calculate the statistical significance of adverse reactions. According to the FCCM, “by comparing the selection rates of members of privileged and non-privileged groups who met subjective requirements to determine whether there are statistically significant differences. If the disparity in these selection rates is not significant, it is very unlikely that the discrimination will result from the use of subjective criteria. If the inequality is significant, there are negative effects, and there may have been discrimination based on different effects. “Chapter 2 of the Federal Contractor Compliance Manual provides more details. The group with the highest selection rate is the Caucasian with 35%. Next, calculate the impact rate. If the application of a particular selection procedure leads to negative effects, the employer may interrupt the application of the procedure and thus eliminate the negative effects. Or if the employer wishes to continue using the procedure, he must prove the “commercial necessity” of the selection procedure – that is, a clear relationship between the selection procedure and the performance of the work.
This process is called validation. There are important differences between practical models or scenarios and adverse effects. Disparity analyses can play an important role in both scenarios, but care must be taken to understand the employment process being analysed. Since the EEOC created the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures in 1978, the four-fifths rule has been the first analytical step in the assessment of adverse reactions. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination (in the workplace or otherwise) based on certain characteristics of a person that are protected by law: race, colour, religion, sex and national origin.  X Research Source  X Trusted Source US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission U.S. Government Agency that enforces civil rights in the workplace For this reason, legal action may be brought against an employer if its selection policies or practices have discriminatory effects, unless the employer can prove that it has adopted the policy or practice in question to serve a legitimate business purpose.  X Research source To establish that an employer has contravened Title VII – and to demonstrate discrimination based on different effects in the workplace – an applicant must demonstrate that a particular employment policy or practice has had a negative impact on a protected class of persons.
Whenever an organization has a professional requirement, such as a certain level of education or physical ability, or a particular dress or grooming rule, a good manager will consider whether that criterion is really looking for a relevant employment attribute and whether this criterion may inadvertently lead to discrimination based on adverse effects. The whole concept of discrimination based on negative effects is based on the application of measures. The 4/5 rule is based on any number derived by mathematical calculation. As a result, compliance with laws against negative effects requires the use of technology. This can be done with spreadsheets created within the organization, or with specialized IT applications and consultants outside the organization. See the table for the calculation of adverse reactions. On September 15, 2010, the Center for Corporate Equality released its 98-page report of the Technical Advisory Committee on Best Practices in Negative Impact Assessment, which provides recommendations on best practices in negative impact analysis based on the contributions of 70 of the country`s leading experts in the process. It was suggested that any HR professional who conducts affirmative action plans and a negative impact analysis could use the report as a “field manual”. Step 2: Termination Impact Ratio – Calculate the impact ratio for each group When hiring, negative impacts can be measured throughout the hiring process (percentage of candidates who are ultimately hired) or segmented according to each step that selects candidates (CURRICULUM VITAE pre-selection, pre-employment assessment, interview). As a rule, adverse reactions are determined using the four-fifths or eighty percent rule.
The four-fifths rule, or 80%, is considered in the guidelines to be “a selection rate for each race, gender or ethnic group that represents less than four-fifths (or 80%) of the rate for the group with the highest rate is generally considered by federal law enforcement agencies to be evidence of adverse effects, while a rate of more than four-fifths is generally not considered evidence of adverse effects by federal law enforcement agencies.” Since the 80% test does not include probability distributions to determine whether the disparity is an “adverse” event, it is generally not considered a definitive test of adverse events. Instead, other tests of statistical significance, such as standard deviation analysis, can be used for this purpose. The uniform guidelines define a practical way of determining the negative effects of a selection procedure. This rule, which is set out in the Uniform Guidelines, is referred to as the “4/5 rule” or “80%”. To determine whether a selection process violates the 4/5 or 80% rule, the selection rate (or, if applicable, the success rate) of the group with the highest selection rate is compared to the selection rates of the other groups. If one of the peer groups does not have a success rate of 80% or more than the success rate of the highest group, it is generally assumed that there is evidence of adverse effects for the respective selection process. Step 3: Calculate the impact report analysis for each group. This compares the favorable group selection rate with the selection rates of all other groups. For example, in the case of Duke Power, we can see that the selection rate of African Americans was 6%, while the selection rate of whites was 58%.
If you divide the lowest selection rate (6%) by the highest rate (58%), we get 6/58 = 10.3%: well below the legal minimum of 80%. In most countries, there are no laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of negative effects. The prohibition of discrimination based on negative effects is largely an invention of the United States. However, the concept shows some signs that it is gaining momentum in the European Union, where it is called “indirect discrimination”. The Sensitivity of the United States to discrimination by negative effects stems from the fact that it is a nation of immigrants and that conflicts between races, religions and other groups have always existed in the United States. U.S. laws then seek to eliminate discrimination in the workplace, even if that discrimination is unintentional. A comparison of the Latino selection rate (30 percent) with the Caucasian selection rate (60 percent) shows that the Latino rate is 30/60 or half (50 percent) of the Caucasian rate. Since half (50%) are less than four-fifths (80%), adverse reactions are generally indicated.
Step 4: Determine if the result is less than 80%. Remember that according to the regulation, a result of less than 80% is considered evidence of adverse effects. A major disadvantage of using the impact report is that sampling errors have occurred when the sample size and selection rates are low. Employers should note that the uniform guidelines include language that allows for stricter statistical tests (such as Chi-Square or Fisher`s Exact Test). In addition, depending on the distribution of data, one method may provide evidence of adverse effects, while another method may not. Another important point to remember is that after the first application of the negative effects analysis on the entire selection process, it can also be applied at each stage of the process, if adverse effects are detected throughout the selection process.