Legal Issues in Industrial Psychology

Historical Context

• Pre-1960s Employment Laws

  • No laws regarding employment discrimination.
  • Laissez-faire attitude towards employment; employment at will.
  • Employees could quit or be fired for any reason without legal repercussions.

• Civil Rights Act of 1964

  • Marked significant change in employer and employee rights.
  • Aimed to provide equality in employment based on various variables.

• EEOC Guidelines (1978)

  • The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission published uniform guidelines for employee selection processes, serving as a foundational document.

• SIOP Principles (1987 & 2003)

  • Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology published guidelines on validation and proper use of personnel selection procedures.
  • 2003 revision to adapt to changes in law and methodologies.

Employment at Will

• Definition: Employers and employees can terminate the employment relationship at any time for any reason, except under specific exceptions.
• Exceptions to Employment at Will:
  • Employment contracts (e.g., athletes)
  • Just Cause discharge policies require employers to provide justification for employee termination.

Adverse Impact and Discrimination

• Adverse Impact:

  • Legal interpretation of discrimination; based on the selection rates of different groups.
  • Courts established the 80% rule for assessing discrimination.
  • Example: If a firehouse has significantly fewer women than men applying for a job, adverse impact is indicated if the selection rate for women is less than 80% of that for men.

• Demonstrating Discrimination:

  • Employee must establish a prima facie case to show adverse impact.
  • Employers can defend against claims by demonstrating business necessity for selection criteria.

Affirmative Action Plans (AAPs)

• Purpose of AAPs:

  • Strategies to increase representation of minority or protected class members in organizations.
  • Aims to remedy past discriminatory practices rather than strictly matching demographic population ratios.

• Controversies and Research Focus:

  • Stigmatization and fairness perceptions regarding AAPs.
  • Structure and goals of AAP implementation.

Recent Court Cases Involving AAPs

• Gratz v. Bollinger (2003):

  • University of Michigan’s admissions policy that awarded points for minority applicants was deemed discriminatory by the Supreme Court.

• University of Michigan Law School Case:

  • Court upheld the law school’s admissions policy as it considered diversity on an individual basis rather than a blanket points system.

• Pettit v. Chicago:

  • Ruled that diversity is a compelling need in police forces, allowing consideration of race in hiring practices.

• Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District:

  • Court ruled against AAPs based solely on race without individual considerations.

• Fisher v. University of Texas:

  • Supported narrowly tailored AAPs focusing on individual qualifications along with diversity goals.

Conclusion

• AAPs are evaluated based on their application and impact on discrimination claims.
• Emphasis on individualized assessments rather than blanket policies to achieve diversity.