• The HR Specialist - Print Newsletter
  • HR Specialist: Employment Law
  • The HR Weekly

Testing

Drugs at work: Cocaine use declines again, but use of prescription opiates rises sharply

11/08/2010
Use of prescription opiates (hydrocondone, oxycondone, etc.) by employees and applicants rose 18% in the past year and has grown 40% since 2005, according to 5 million drug tests done by testing firm Quest. The report also says cocaine use among workers continues to decline (down 29% from 2008 to 2009).

Bloomberg, court lock horns over firefighter hiring

10/07/2010
A Brooklyn court has extended an injunction preventing New York City from hiring new firefighters because existing hiring tests discriminate against minorities. The court proposed five alternative hiring plans that would bypass continued use of tests, but Mayor Michael Bloomberg claims all five require the city to use illegal quotas.

You can’t hide behind your vendor! Before relying on tests, be sure they’re valid

09/24/2010

Are you considering using personality or other screening tests to decide which job applicants to hire? If so, make sure you fully understand what you are doing and how those tests work. There are plenty of companies eager to sell you tests and assessments that they say will take some of the work out of the screening processes. But if those tests aren’t valid and end up screening out members of a protected class, you may be buying more than a test.

Is dyslexia an ADA disability?

09/24/2010
Q. Is dyslexia considered a disability under the ADA? Can we legally screen potential employees for it through our pre-employment tests?

13 applicants you don’t want to hire (plus 7 tips for decoding resumes)

09/21/2010

Desperate times mean job-seekers are resorting to desperate measures to make their résumés stand out in a crowd. Alas, many of those strategies backfire. Witness these résumé bloopers recently uncovered in a nationwide survey of hiring managers. Then check out our sure-fire advice for smoking out résumé untruths and exaggerations.

Don’t ask for unlimited medical exam consent

07/08/2010
Under the ADA, medical exams are allowed only if needed to determine whether an employee requires a reasonable accommodation or if the employer believes the employee will be unable to safely perform the job. But can employers require employees to agree to more extensive medical examinations as a condition of employment? Probably not.

Supreme Court rules on pre-employment tests and disparate impact

06/18/2010
The U.S. Supreme Court in late May unanimously sided with a group of black firefighter applicants who alleged that the city of Chicago’s employment selection process had a disparate impact on them. The court said the timing of Title VII lawsuits doesn’t depend on when the alleged discriminatory act first occurred, but on when the employer acted on the results of that discriminatory act, even if that’s years later.

When determining fitness for duty, strictly limit medical inquiries to essential functions

06/18/2010

Employers aren’t allowed to delve into an employee’s disabilities or medical history when that employee wants to keep the information private—unless the employer can show a job-related reason for doing so. To qualify, the inquiry must be narrowly tailored to assess whether the employee is capable of performing the essential functions of his job. Broad questions often run afoul of the law.

Supreme Court rules on Chicago hiring test

06/14/2010
In a case coming out of Illinois, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that each time an employer uses the results of a test to select candidates for promotion creates a new opportunity for employees to challenge that test. That means if a test was invalid, its continued use may spur litigation long after the test was actually administered.

High Court: Bias clock resets with each hiring decision

06/10/2010
In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court in May ruled that the lawsuit clock resets each time an employer uses apparently biased job-qualification tests to make hiring decisions. The court said the timing of Title VII lawsuits doesn’t depend on when the test was administered, but on when the employer uses the test results, even if that’s years later.