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 PHR Exam - Topic 4 Question 108 Discussion

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?
C) McDonnell Douglas Corp. versus Green, 1973
A) Washington versus Davis, 1976
B) Griggs versus Duke Power, 1971
D) Albemarle Paper versus Moody, 1975

HRCI PHR Exam - Topic 4 Question 108 Discussion

Actual exam question for HRCI's PHR exam
Question #: 108
Topic #: 4
[All PHR 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: C

The Railway Labor Act was a critical win for the management, in that it helped keep trains, and later airlines, from striking - to disrupt travel of citizens. The act was created to keep the trains moving - with a few exceptions, such as safety.

Answer option A is incorrect. The Clayton Act clarified language in the Sherman Antitrust Act, and deemed labor unions and agricultural unions exempt from the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Answer option D is incorrect. The National Industrial Recovery Act guaranteed laborers the right to organize and bargain collectively.

Answer option B is incorrect. The National Labor Relations Act, also known as the Wagner Act, guaranteed the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organization, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choice.


by Gary at Mar 08, 2025, 03:50 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

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

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Darrin
7 months ago
Albemarle Paper vs. Moody is also a key case to know!
upvoted 0 times
...
Kristel
8 months ago
Really? A test can still be valid even if it has adverse impact?
upvoted 0 times
...
Chara
8 months ago
No way, that can't be right!
upvoted 0 times
...
Christa
8 months ago
I thought it was Griggs vs. Duke Power, 1971.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lai
8 months ago
It's definitely Washington vs. Davis, 1976!
upvoted 0 times
...
Nathan
9 months ago
Albemarle Paper versus Moody sounds familiar, but I can't remember its specifics regarding test validity.
upvoted 0 times
...
Willard
9 months ago
I feel like McDonnell Douglas Corp. versus Green was more about discrimination in hiring practices, not tests.
upvoted 0 times
...
Latia
9 months ago
I remember studying Washington versus Davis, but I can't recall if it specifically addressed job-related tests.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tiara
9 months ago
I think the case we're looking for is Griggs versus Duke Power, but I'm not entirely sure if it was the one about adverse impact.
upvoted 0 times
...
Vallie
9 months ago
I'm feeling pretty confident about this one. The key case that established the "job-related and valid" standard for tests with adverse impact is Griggs v. Duke Power, which was decided in 1971. I'm going with B for this question.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tegan
9 months ago
Okay, let me see if I can work this out. I remember learning about the Griggs case, where the Supreme Court ruled that even if a test has a disparate impact, it can still be legal if it's proven to be job-related and valid. I think that's the right answer here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tawanna
9 months ago
Hmm, I'm a little unsure on this one. I know there have been a lot of important employment law cases, but I can't quite remember the specifics of this one. I'll have to think it through carefully.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kimberely
9 months ago
I'm pretty sure this is asking about the Griggs v. Duke Power case, which established that employment tests with adverse impact on protected groups need to be job-related and valid.
upvoted 0 times
...
Macy
1 year ago
Wait, they're testing us on legal cases? I thought this was the 'How to Avoid Lawsuits 101' exam. Guess I'll have to use my trusty 'Plea the Fifth' strategy on this one.
upvoted 0 times
...
Buffy
1 year ago
D) Albemarle Paper versus Moody, 1975 - that's the one, I'm sure of it! Now, where did I put my crystal ball to predict the test questions?
upvoted 0 times
...
Rodolfo
1 year ago
A) Washington versus Davis, 1976 sounds familiar, but I can't quite remember the details. Guess I should have paid more attention in my HR law class.
upvoted 0 times
Hassie
1 year ago
D) Albemarle Paper versus Moody, 1975 focused on the issue of promotion practices and discrimination.
upvoted 0 times
...
Charlena
1 year ago
C) McDonnell Douglas Corp. versus Green, 1973 also dealt with employment discrimination, but in a different context.
upvoted 0 times
...
Allene
1 year ago
B) Griggs versus Duke Power, 1971 is the legal case that found a test with adverse impact on a protected class is still lawful if it can be shown to be valid and job related.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dorthy
1 year ago
A) Washington versus Davis, 1976 sounds familiar, but I can't quite remember the details. Guess I should have paid more attention in my HR law class.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Stephaine
1 year ago
Hmm, I'm not sure about this one. Can we get a hint? I've got a test tomorrow and I really need to ace it, even if it means I have to jump through a few hoops.
upvoted 0 times
King
1 year ago
D) Albemarle Paper versus Moody, 1975
upvoted 0 times
...
Jenifer
1 year ago
C) McDonnell Douglas Corp. versus Green, 1973
upvoted 0 times
...
Sarah
1 year ago
B) Griggs versus Duke Power, 1971
upvoted 0 times
...
Cortney
1 year ago
A) Washington versus Davis, 1976
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Janella
1 year ago
I think the answer is B) Griggs versus Duke Power, 1971. This case established the concept of disparate impact and the requirement for job-related testing.
upvoted 0 times
Timothy
1 year ago
It's important for HR professionals to be familiar with these legal cases and their impact on human resource practices.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rory
1 year ago
That's correct, this case established the concept of disparate impact and the requirement for job-related testing.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kathryn
1 year ago
I agree, the answer is B) Griggs versus Duke Power, 1971.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Portia
1 year ago
Actually, Ronald, you are correct. The case of Griggs versus Duke Power, 1971, established that a test with adverse impact must be shown to be valid and job related to be lawful.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ronald
1 year ago
I disagree, I believe the correct answer is B) Griggs versus Duke Power, 1971.
upvoted 0 times
...
Portia
1 year ago
I think the answer is A) Washington versus Davis, 1976.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel