Every entity needs to make sure that every employee selection process is legally compliant and equitable. It is especially vital to analyze the legality of a process considering the fact that some employment screening exams can be considered to be discriminatory in nature. However, as long as the tests are done right and aim at assessing the traits and skills that are related to the job, then it can be useful in adding an extra layer of objectivity in the hiring process. Organizations like the garden center management need to implement the screening exams according to the legal guidelines so that they are better prepared to defend them in cases where the procedures face legal challenges. The first step is analyzing the different employment screening exams that are available.
Different Employment Screening Exams
The different employment screening exams include the job knowledge test that mainly evaluates the general knowledge of the position and industry as expected to be done by garden center. The method will help to get the person who has the skills that are required for the position. Another necessary test is the personality test which provides an insight into the preferences and personal style of the job candidate ( Casenotes , 2008) . It is vital because some personalities are fit specific positions and environments better as compared to others. As opposed to personality and knowledge-based tests that look at the personality of individuals, there are other tests that look at the health of the applicant such as drug testing that examines illegal drug use and the physical fitness test that expects employees to have specified levels of physical fitness. A good example of the physical fitness text relates to the ability to lift 50 pounds as seen in the case of garden center management. However, before implementing the exams, it is vital to analyze their legalities.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Legalities of the Employment Screening Exams
Evidently, there are many tests that are often used during the employment process. Some of the tests closely focus on the abilities and skills of the job while others aim at collecting personal information for different purposes and thus are considered to be controversial. Even though there are legitimate concerns about the exams, they are legal as long as the organization does not use the results to discriminate based on color, religion, age, race, sex, disability, or national origin ( Nixon, 2008) . The tests need to be valid and related to the job. One test that is considered illegal in all circumstances is the lie detector text.
Employment Screening Exams
In the case of garden center management, the physical test is job-related mainly because the stockers of the company are expected to have the ability to occasionally lift fifty pounds. It is a bona fide occupational qualification because it is even a health and safety hazard for employees who cannot lift the weight to handle it as they can harm themselves and those around them.
Organizational Strategy to Manage and Recover from Liabilities
The best strategy of managing liability arising from the screening exams is making sure that they are in accordance with the federal laws that govern the hiring practices more specifically the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP). The guidelines ensure that the company does not against the discrimination laws. Recovery from liabilities demands the company to defend itself against any claim of discrimination based on its ability to follow the UGESP.
Conclusion
Employment screening exams help companies in improving the business outcomes and also help in enhancing the equitability, legal defensibility, and objectivity of the hiring process of a company. However, before being used, their legality needs to be analyzed to avoid legal liabilities.
References
Casenotes. (2008). Employment Discrimination, Keyed to Friedman and Strickler . Aspen Law & Business.
Nixon, W. B., & Kerr, K. M. (2008). Background screening and investigations: Managing hiring risk from the HR and security perspectives . Amsterdam: Butterworth-Heinemann.
