HRCI PHR Exam - Topic 4 Question 108 Discussion

Actual exam question for HRCI's PHR exam

Question #: 108
Topic #: 4

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?

AWashington versus Davis, 1976

BGriggs versus Duke Power, 1971

CMcDonnell Douglas Corp. versus Green, 1973

DAlbemarle Paper versus Moody, 1975

Show Suggested 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:

Submit Cancel

Darrin

6 months ago

Albemarle Paper vs. Moody is also a key case to know!

upvoted 0 times

...

Kristel

6 months ago

Really? A test can still be valid even if it has adverse impact?

upvoted 0 times

...

Chara

6 months ago

No way, that can't be right!

upvoted 0 times

...

Christa

7 months ago

I thought it was Griggs vs. Duke Power, 1971.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lai

7 months ago

It's definitely Washington vs. Davis, 1976!

upvoted 0 times

...

Nathan

7 months ago

Albemarle Paper versus Moody sounds familiar, but I can't remember its specifics regarding test validity.

upvoted 0 times

...

Willard

7 months ago

I feel like McDonnell Douglas Corp. versus Green was more about discrimination in hiring practices, not tests.

upvoted 0 times

...

Latia

7 months ago

I remember studying Washington versus Davis, but I can't recall if it specifically addressed job-related tests.

upvoted 0 times

...

Tiara

8 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

8 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

8 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

8 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

8 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

11 months ago

D) Albemarle Paper versus Moody, 1975 focused on the issue of promotion practices and discrimination.

upvoted 0 times

...

Charlena

11 months ago

C) McDonnell Douglas Corp. versus Green, 1973 also dealt with employment discrimination, but in a different context.

upvoted 0 times

...

Allene

11 months 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

11 months 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

11 months ago

D) Albemarle Paper versus Moody, 1975

upvoted 0 times

...

Jenifer

11 months ago

C) McDonnell Douglas Corp. versus Green, 1973

upvoted 0 times

...

Sarah

12 months ago

B) Griggs versus Duke Power, 1971

upvoted 0 times

...

Cortney

12 months 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

12 months 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

12 months 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

...