Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

HRCI Exam SPHR Topic 6 Question 97 Discussion

Actual exam question for HRCI's SPHR exam
Question #: 97
Topic #: 6
[All SPHR Questions]

As an HR Professional you must be familiar with several different lawsuits and their affect on human resource practices today. What legal case found that a test that has an adverse impact on a protected class is still lawful as long as the test can be shown to be valid and job related?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: A

The doctrine of contributory negligence was used to mitigate the employer's responsibility if the worker's actions contributed in any way to the injury.

Chapter: Risk Management

Objective: Risk Management


by Chana at Jan 10, 2025, 04:14 PM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium SPHR Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel
Stephen
1 months ago
Ah, the Griggs v. Duke Power case, of course! I can just imagine the HR professionals back then scratching their heads, like 'wait, so we have to make sure our tests are actually relevant to the job? Crazy!' Good thing they figured that one out.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dyan
1 months ago
Got it, the Griggs v. Duke Power case is the one we're looking for. I remember learning about that in my HR law class. It's like the classic 'you can't just give everyone the same test and call it fair' kind of situation.
upvoted 0 times
Tresa
14 days ago
That's true, as long as the test is valid and job-related, it can still be lawful.
upvoted 0 times
...
Julian
15 days ago
It's important to remember that just because a test has adverse impact, it doesn't mean it's automatically illegal.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ronna
1 months ago
Yes, you're right! The Griggs v. Duke Power case set the precedent for that.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Oneida
2 months ago
Hmm, I'm pretty sure the answer is Griggs v. Duke Power. That case really shaped how we think about employment testing and adverse impact. It's a good thing they figured that out, otherwise, we'd have a lot of unhappy job applicants on our hands!
upvoted 0 times
Sol
1 days ago
B) McDonnell Douglas Corp. versus Green, 1973
upvoted 0 times
...
Colette
2 days ago
That's correct! Griggs v. Duke Power established the concept of disparate impact and the need for employment tests to be job-related.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lamonica
12 days ago
A) Griggs versus Duke Power, 1971
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Arlie
2 months ago
I think the Griggs v. Duke Power case is the right answer here. It's a classic example of how employers need to ensure their hiring practices are fair and non-discriminatory, even if they have unintended consequences.
upvoted 0 times
Jules
1 months ago
B) McDonnell Douglas Corp. versus Green, 1973
upvoted 0 times
...
Starr
1 months ago
That's correct! The Griggs v. Duke Power case established the concept of disparate impact and the need for job-relatedness in employment tests.
upvoted 0 times
...
Bettye
2 months ago
A) Griggs versus Duke Power, 1971
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Jettie
3 months ago
The Griggs v. Duke Power case in 1971 is the correct answer. It established that even if a test has an adverse impact on a protected class, it can still be lawful if it's shown to be valid and job-related. This was a landmark decision in employment discrimination law.
upvoted 0 times
Huey
26 days ago
Yes, that's the one where they found the test could still be lawful if job-related.
upvoted 0 times
...
Sherita
27 days ago
A) Griggs versus Duke Power, 1971
upvoted 0 times
...
Fernanda
28 days ago
No, that case dealt with the burden of proof in discrimination cases.
upvoted 0 times
...
Joanna
29 days ago
B) McDonnell Douglas Corp. versus Green, 1973
upvoted 0 times
...
Weldon
1 months ago
That case set an important precedent for employment discrimination law.
upvoted 0 times
...
Billy
1 months ago
B) McDonnell Douglas Corp. versus Green, 1973
upvoted 0 times
...
Hildegarde
1 months ago
A) Griggs versus Duke Power, 1971
upvoted 0 times
...
Lucille
2 months ago
That's correct. The Griggs v. Duke Power case in 1971 established that concept.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rodrigo
2 months ago
A) Griggs versus Duke Power, 1971
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Tammara
3 months ago
I remember studying this case, it's definitely A) Griggs versus Duke Power, 1971. It's important for HR professionals to understand the implications of such legal cases on their practices.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tracey
3 months ago
I agree with Felicidad, because in that case the Supreme Court ruled that as long as the test is valid and job related, it can still be lawful even if it has adverse impact on a protected class.
upvoted 0 times
...
Felicidad
3 months ago
I think the answer is A) Griggs versus Duke Power, 1971.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel