Job analysis: definition, legal implications, and court rulings on selection practices

¶ … Job Analysis; Discuss Legal Implications Job Analysis (including Citing Court Case Ruled Selection Practices)

Job analysis: A legal overview

A job analysis lists the competencies required to perform a job; identifies "the job-relatedness of the tasks and competencies needed to successfully perform the job"; and defends the assessment and selection criteria of the job from a legal standpoint (Job analysis, 2013, opm.gov). When constructing a job analysis, "a good place to start is by reviewing materials" that describes the work that is performed, including descriptions of the position; the subject matter on which the employee is supposed to be an expert; performance standards for the job; and occupational studies defining the job's characteristics (Six steps to conducting a job analysis, 2013, opm.gov). Then a list of the required tasks can be created, followed by the identification of the most critical tasks for the position and a list of the most critical competencies. After ranking those tasks and competencies and setting performance standards an effective job analysis can be created and finalized (Six steps to conducting a job analysis, 2013, opm.gov).

A coherent job analysis ensures that a candidate who is well-suited to the job will be selected. It can also defend the organization against charges of bias, if its standards are questioned. A company cannot arbitrarily set requirements for a job that are unrelated to the job's actual tasks and competencies to specifically screen out certain 'types' of persons. For example in the landmark case of Griggs v. Duke Power, the U.S. Supreme Court held that in regards to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, "the Act requires the elimination of artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary barriers to employment that operate invidiously to discriminate on the basis of race, and if, as here, an employment practice that operates to exclude Negroes [sic] cannot be shown to be related to job performance, it is prohibited, notwithstanding the employer's lack of discriminatory intent" (Griggs v. Duke Power Company, 1971, Cornell University Law School).

In the case, Duke Power Co. required all employees to have a high school education. Given the historic discrimination against African-Americans in the American school system, fewer non-white applicants had high school diplomas, resulting in fewer hires of African-Americans who were otherwise qualified to perform the tasks of the job, and there was no essential link between the tasks performed and the need for a high school diploma, according to the Court. The Court also noted "the Act does not preclude the use of testing or measuring procedures, but it does proscribe giving them controlling force unless they are demonstrably a reasonable measure of job performance" (Griggs v. Duke Power Company, 1971, Cornell University Law School). Even if the intention of the standards that are set is not discriminatory, it is still illegal to set requirements for the job not linked to the task at hand. As noted by the Court, "Congress directed the thrust of the Act (Title VII) to the consequences of employment practices, not simply the motivation" (Griggs v. Duke Power Company, 1971, Cornell University Law School).