New Year Sale 2026! 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 SPHR Exam - 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:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Earleen
3 months ago
Yup, Griggs set the precedent for job-related testing standards.
upvoted 0 times
...
Britt
3 months ago
Not sure if I buy that. Seems unfair to me.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tresa
3 months ago
Wait, so a test can still be valid even if it impacts a protected class? That's surprising!
upvoted 0 times
...
Arlie
4 months ago
Totally agree, that case changed the game for testing in hiring.
upvoted 0 times
...
Geoffrey
4 months ago
It's Griggs versus Duke Power, 1971!
upvoted 0 times
...
Mitsue
4 months ago
I have a vague memory of Washington versus Davis being mentioned in class, but I don't think it was about tests. I lean towards Griggs for this one.
upvoted 0 times
...
German
4 months ago
I practiced a question similar to this, and I believe Albemarle Paper versus Moody was about testing validity. Could that be the answer?
upvoted 0 times
...
Cammy
4 months ago
I'm not entirely sure, but I feel like McDonnell Douglas Corp. versus Green might be relevant too. It dealt with discrimination, right?
upvoted 0 times
...
Kelvin
5 months ago
I think the case we're looking for is Griggs versus Duke Power. I remember it had to do with employment tests and their impact on minorities.
upvoted 0 times
...
Norah
5 months ago
I'm pretty sure the answer is Griggs v. Duke Power. That landmark case set the standard for when employment tests with adverse impact can still be considered lawful. Feels like a solid choice for this question.
upvoted 0 times
...
Merlyn
5 months ago
Okay, let me think this through. I believe the key case here is Griggs v. Duke Power. That established the principle of "disparate impact" and said tests with adverse impact can still be legal if they're job-related and valid. Definitely going with A on this one.
upvoted 0 times
...
Therese
5 months ago
Ugh, I'm drawing a blank on the specific case name for this. I know it has to do with employment tests and adverse impact, but I can't recall the details. Guess I'll have to make an educated guess on this one.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ellen
5 months ago
Hmm, this is a tricky one. I'm not totally sure, but I think it might be Washington v. Davis? That case dealt with employment tests and adverse impact, if I'm remembering correctly.
upvoted 0 times
...
Erasmo
5 months ago
I think I know this one - it's Griggs v. Duke Power, right? That case established that even if a test has a disproportionate impact on a protected group, it can still be legal if it's shown to be job-related and valid.
upvoted 0 times
...
Stephen
9 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
9 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
Launa
8 months ago
It's all about ensuring fairness and equality in the hiring process.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tresa
8 months ago
That's true, as long as the test is valid and job-related, it can still be lawful.
upvoted 0 times
...
Julian
8 months 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
9 months ago
Yes, you're right! The Griggs v. Duke Power case set the precedent for that.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Oneida
9 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
8 months ago
B) McDonnell Douglas Corp. versus Green, 1973
upvoted 0 times
...
Colette
8 months 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
8 months ago
A) Griggs versus Duke Power, 1971
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Arlie
10 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
9 months ago
B) McDonnell Douglas Corp. versus Green, 1973
upvoted 0 times
...
Starr
9 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
10 months ago
A) Griggs versus Duke Power, 1971
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Jettie
11 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
9 months ago
Yes, that's the one where they found the test could still be lawful if job-related.
upvoted 0 times
...
Sherita
9 months ago
A) Griggs versus Duke Power, 1971
upvoted 0 times
...
Fernanda
9 months ago
No, that case dealt with the burden of proof in discrimination cases.
upvoted 0 times
...
Joanna
9 months ago
B) McDonnell Douglas Corp. versus Green, 1973
upvoted 0 times
...
Weldon
9 months ago
That case set an important precedent for employment discrimination law.
upvoted 0 times
...
Billy
9 months ago
B) McDonnell Douglas Corp. versus Green, 1973
upvoted 0 times
...
Hildegarde
9 months ago
A) Griggs versus Duke Power, 1971
upvoted 0 times
...
Lucille
10 months ago
That's correct. The Griggs v. Duke Power case in 1971 established that concept.
upvoted 0 times
...
Rodrigo
10 months ago
A) Griggs versus Duke Power, 1971
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Tammara
11 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
11 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
11 months ago
I think the answer is A) Griggs versus Duke Power, 1971.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel